THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 

GIFT  OF 

Gordon  S.  Wat kins 


library 

0*lv»r«*y  of  California 
Riverside,  Califomte 


REVOLUTIONARY 
SOCIALISM 


A  Study  in  Socialist 
Reconstruction 


By 
LOUIS  C.  FRAINA 


Price,  75  Cents 


REVOLUTIONARY   SOCIALISM 


REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

A  Study  in  Socialist  Reconstruction 


B 


[LOUIS  C/FRAINA) 


Authorized  and  Issued  by  the  Central 

Executive    Committee    of    the 

Socialist  Propaganda  League 


New  York 

THE    COMMUNIST    PRESS 
Publishers 


Copyright,  1918 
BY  Louis  C.  FRAINA 


UN, 

'     / 


PREFACE 

WARS,  says  Marx,  are  the  locomotives  of  history. 
The  world  war  is  acting  as  an  accelerator  of  events 
and  as  a  drastic  revealer  of  purposes  and  capacity. 
War  cleanses  and  re-creates  as  it  dirties  and  destroys. 
[n  the  lightning-riven  gulfs  of  the  great  catastrophe, 
Capitalism  and  the  dominant  moderate  Socialism  are 
ach  appearing  in  their  true  character  and  propor- 
ions,  each  proven  unfit  to  direct  the  destiny  of  the 
world. 

The  world  war  signalized  the  collapse  of  the  domin- 
nt  Socialism ;  but  it  also  signalized  the  advent  of  the 
roletarian  revolution  in  Russia,  organized  and 
irected  by  revolutionary  Socialism.  Having  cast 
off  the  petty  bourgeois  fetters  that  hampered  its 
action,  Socialism  appeared  as  the  revolutionary  force 
and  maker  of  a  new  world  that  are  its  essential  char- 
acteristics. Out  of  defeats  Socialism  and  the  proletar- 
iat emerge  with  new  vigor  and  vision. 

The  proletarian  revolution  in  Russia  marks  the 

(// 

lentry  of  the  proletariat  into  a  new  revolutionary 

pepoch.     In  this  epoch  the  Social  Revolution  is  no 
longer  simply  an  aspiration,  but  a  dynamic  process  of 


ii  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

4  immediate  revolutionary  struggles.  This  is  an  historic 
^development  of  decisive  importance.  It  means  the 
preparation  of  the  proletariat  for  the  final  struggle 
against  Capitalism  and  the  necessity  of  an  uncompro- 
mising policy  in  the  activity  of  Socialism;  it  means, 
in  short,  the  revolutionary  reconstruction  of  Socialist 
policy  and  tactics,  in  accord  with  the  imperative  re- 
quirements of  the  new  epoch. 

The  collapse  of  the  dominant  moderate  Socialism 
was  not  a  collapse  of  fundamental  Socialism ;  it  was  a 
collapse  simply  of  the  contemporary  historical  expres- 
sion of  Socialism,  and  Socialism  itself  provides  all 
the  materials  for  the  criticism  of  this  collapse  and  for 
the  reconstruction  of  Socialism. 

The  great  task  of  Socialist  reconstruction  is  pro- 
ceeding actively  throughout  the  world.  It  is  a  task 
that  will  require  the  co-operation  of  all  the  revolution- 
ary elements  of  international  Socialism.  The  com- 
plexity of  forces  and  problems,  the  diversity  of 
development,  make  co-operation  mandatory.  The 
old  concepts  of  revolutionary  Socialism  will  clash 
with  the  new,  and  the  new  with  the  old,  until  a  syn- 
thesis emerges  through  the  process  of  action  and  re- 
construction. And  the  process  of  reconstruction  will 
be  animated  by  the  struggles  of  the  proletariat,  not 
by  the  academic  formulation  of  theory  upon  theory: 
Socialism  is  dynamic  and  not  academic.  Theory 
becomes  an  instrument  of  life,  and  not  life  an  in- 
strument of  theory. 


PREFACE  iii 

This  book  is  a  contribution  to  the  task  of  recon- 
struction; its  chief  purpose  is  to  provide  a  sugges- 
tive synthesis  of  Socialist  reconstruction,  and  not 
an  exhaustive  analysis  of  all  the  problems  involved. 

I  wish  to  express  the  deep  appreciation  I  feel  to  my 
good  Comrade,  S.  J.  Rutgers,  my  colleague  for  one 
year  on  The  New  International,  who  read  the  manu- 
script of  this  book,  making  many  an  acute  criticism 
and  suggestion.  A  member  of  the  revolutionary  So- 
cial Democratic  Party  of  Holland,  Comrade  Rutgers' 
sojourn  of  two  years  in  this  country  and  his  activity  in 
the  Socialist  Propaganda  League  were  a  source  of 
inspiration  and  ideas  to  the  comrades  associated  with 
him. 

Louis  C.  FRAINA. 

New  York  City,  November  6,  1918. 
First  Anniversary  of  the 
Proletarian  Revolution  in  Russia. 


BOURGEOIS  revolutions,  like  those  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  rush  onward  rapidly 
from  success  to  success,  their  stage  effects 
outbid  one  another,  men  and  things  seem 
to  be  set  in  flaming  brilliants,  ecstasy  is 
the  prevailing  spirit;  but  they  are  short- 
lived, they  reach  their  climax  speedily, 
then  society  relapses  into  a  long  fit  of  nerv- 
ous reaction  before  it  learns  how  to  ap- 
propriate the  fruits  of  its  period  of  fever- 
ish excitement.  Proletarian  revolutions, 
on  the  contrary,  such  as  those  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  criticize  themselves  con- 
stantly; constantly  interrupt  themselves  in 
their  own  course;  come  back  to  what  seems 
to  have  been  accomplished,  in  order  to 
start  anew;  scorn  with  cruel  thoroughness 
the  half  measures,  weaknesses  and  mean- 
nesses of  their  first  attempts;  seem  to 
throw  down  their  adversary  only  in  or- 
der to  enable  him  to  draw  fresh  strength 
from  the  earth,  and  again  to  rise  up  against 
them  in  more  gigantic  stature;  constantly 
recoil  in  fear  before  the  undefined  mon- 
ster magnitude  of  their  own  objects — until 
finally  that  situation  is  created  which  ren- 
ders all  retreat  impossible,  and  the  con- 
ditions themselves  cry  out:  "Hie  Rhodus, 
hie  salta!" — Karl  Marx,  The  Eighteenth 
Brumaire  of  Louis  Bonaparte. 


CONTENTS 

PACE 

PREFACE  I 

I.    SOCIALISM  AND  THE  WAR 1 

II.    IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM 11 

III.  CLASS  DIVISIONS  UNDER  IMPERIALISM 38 

IV.  THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY 56 

V.    FUNDAMENTALS  OF  SOCIALISM 74 

VI.    SOCIALISM  IN  ACTION 1 83 

VII.    THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE 93 

VIII.    SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT 119 

IX.    CLASS  AND  NATION 145 

X.    PROBLEMS  OF  STATE  CAPITALISM 162 

XI.    UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION 179 

XII.    THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION 204 

SUPPLEMENTARY 

I.    IMPERIALISM  IN  ACTION 226 

II.    CONCENTRATION  AND  LABOR—                           _  236 


REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  WAR 

WAR,  particularly  a  general  world  war,  tests  the 
capacity  of  all  whom  it  affects.  The  world  war  is 
a  war  that  has  thrown  into  the  crucible  of  change 
all  ideas  and  institutions;  and  out  of  this  molten 
mass  is  emerging  a  new  order. 

This  epochal  character  of  the  war  is  appreciated 
much  more  by  the  representatives  of  capital  than  by 
the  representatives  of  the  proletariat.  Imperialism 
recognizes  that  all  it  cherishes  is  at  stake ;  it  recognizes 
that  its  future  depends  upon  its  action  in  this  war, 
and  its  capacity  to  adapt  itself  to  the  new  conditions 
that  are  developing.  The  old  slogans,  the  old  policy 
of  Capitalism  are  being  adapted  to  circumstances  as 
they  arise;  it  is  inflexible  in  its  class  attitude  during 
the  war,  and  flexible  in  its  attitude  toward  new  prob- 
lems, studying  these  problems,  realizing  that  new  con- 
ditions impose  new  measures.  There  is  a  ferment  of 
ideas,  a  passionate  activity,  among  the  representatives 
of  Imperialism,  who  appreciate  the  universal  scope 
of  the  problems  of  the  war.  But,  unfortunately,  this 


2  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

attitude  does  not  generally  prevail  among  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  proletariat.  Socialism  itself  is  not 
An  tune  with  the  new  rhythm  of  things.  Socialism, 
/Jon  the  whole,  has  during  the  war  abandoned  its  class 
£|  attitude.  Socialism  has  met  a  real  and  humiliating 
defeat;  and  instead  of  recognizing  this  defeat  as  a 
defeat,  in  the  spirit  of  men  and  of  rebels,  the  tendency 
is  either  to  explain  away  the  defeat  or  hail  it  as  a 
great  victory.  Instead  of  an  appreciation  of  new  con- 
ditions and  new  problems,  the  dominant  Socialism 
smugly  adheres  to  its  old  slogans  and  policy,  the  old 
tactics  that  directed  Socialism  straight  to  disaster.  The 
great  problems  of  a  new  epoch  are  compressed  in  the 
petty  formula  of  yester-year, — perverted  formulae, 
formulae  that  have  become  a  corpse  which  exhales  the 
poisonous  stench  of  death.  This  attitude  is  particu 
larly  apparent,  largely  dominant,  in  American  Social- 
ism; the  war  is  used  for  purposes  of  petty  political 
advantages,  and  there  is  no  appreciation,  no  attempt 
to  appreciate,  the  revolutionizing  importance  of  the 
war  in  its  relation  to  Socialism. 

The  world  war  is  a  revolutionary  factor.  The  war 
is  transforming  the  world  economically,  socially  and 
politically.  Its  importance  has  a  dual  character — its 
influence  on  immediate  events,  and  the  ultimate 
changes  and  reconstruction  it  imposes  upon  the  So- 
cialist program  and  Socialist  action.  This  process 
of  transformation  preceded  the  war  and  will  continue 
after  peace  is  concluded,  the  significance  of  the  war 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  WAR  3 

being  the  circumstance  that  it  has  brought  these  pre- 
ceding factors  of  transformation  to  a  climax  and 
powerfully  accelerated  their  onward  development. 

The  war  marks  the  definite,  catastrophic  end  of  an 
epoch  of  Capitalism.    It  is  not  the  end  of  Capitalism, 
as  the  petit  bourgeois  Socialist  fondly  imagines, — the 
petit  bourgeois  Socialist,  who  sees  the  end  of  Capital- 
ism in  any  and  all  things  except  the  dynamic  struggles 
of  Socialism  and  the  proletariat.    The  old  competitive  / 
Capitalism,  the  Capitalism  of  laissez-faire,  of  democ-j 
racy  and  liberal  ideas,  has  emerged  definitely  into\ 
a  new  epoch,  the  epoch  of  Imperialism.    This  trans-  j 
formation  carries  with  it  the  alteration  of  old  values 
and  institutions, — an  alteration  being  accomplished 
by  Capitalism,  but  not,  as  yet,  by  Socialism. 

Precisely  as  the  nations  at  war  are  not  battling  for 
the  mere  division  of  territory  or  particular  advan- 
tages, but  for  general  power,  so  the  transformation  be- 
ing wrought  by  the  war  is  not  measured  in  particular 
facts  or  institutional  changes,  but  in  the  general  line 
of  development  of  Capitalism,  and  of  the  revolution- 
ary proletariat:  a  new  epoch,  and  a  new  alignment  in 
the  social  struggle. 

War  develops  out  of  the  class  struggle,  and  the 
class  stmggle^Hevelops  in  and  through  war.  While 
bringing^witiritlhe  collapse  of  Socialism  as  an  organ< 
ized  movement,  the  war  has  simultaneously  demon 
strated,  in  a  new  way  and  emphatically,  that  the  pro-* 
letariat  holds  the  future  of  the  world  in  the  hollow. 


4  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

\  of  its  hand.    Class  antagonisms  have  been  sharpened, 
while  officially  and  apparently  they  have  been  modi- 
fied through  national  unity;  and  Capitalism  has  shown 
/its  utter  incapacity  to  preserve  and  promote  civiliza- 
l  tion  and  progress.    Moreover,  the  Russian  Revolution 
I  has  projected  upon  the  stage  of  history  the  new  revolu- 
(  tionary  class  in  action,  the  class  of  the  revolutionary 
proletariat.     The  Socialist  conception  of  the  prole- 
tariat as  a  class  that  will  engage  in  the  revolutionary 
struggle  against  Capitalism,  and  overthrow  Capital- 
ism, is  no  longer  simply  a  theory,  but  a  fact.     Capi- 
talism is  a-tremble  with  apprehension  at  the  accom- 
plished fact  of  a  proletarian  revolution,  and  the  dan- 
ger that  lurks  in  the  awakening  consciousness  of  the 
international  proletariat. 

Other  factors  than  the  Russian  Revolution  indi- 
cate the  potential  supremacy  of  the  proletariat.  The 
discussions  of  the  war's  military  strategy  emphasize 
the  fact  that  the  life  of  a  nation,  including  its  military 
power,  lies  in  the  work-shops.  The  mobilization  of 
the  strictly  military  forces  depends  upon  the  mobiliza- 
tion of  industry  and  the  whole  civil  population.  The 
: greater  the  industrial  power  of  a  nation,  the  greater  its 
military  power.  Nor  does  the  strength  of  a  nation 
consist  of  its  wealth,  but  of  its  productive  capacity, — 
[which  means  in  the  industrial  proletariat.  H.  L. 
Gantt,  an  efficiency  expert  and  shrewd  observer  of 
things  industrial,  says:  "Soon  after  the  breaking  out 
of  the  war  it  was  recognized  that  the  life  of  a  nation 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  WAR  5 

was  to  depend  not  upon  the  wealth  it  had  stored  up, 
but  upon  its  productive  capacity."  Which  is  to  say 
that  wealth  is  simply  a  symbol,  productive  capacity 
the  fact  dominating  all  other  facts.  The  war  would 
have  been  over  in  short  order  if  it  depended  upon  the 
accumulated  wealth  of  the  belligerents;  but  it  does 
not:  it  depends  ultimately  and  in  an  economic  sense 
upon  the  productive  capacity  of  a  nation,  upon  its 
industrial  resources  and  the  proletariat.  Even  a  pure- 
ly financial  transaction  such  as  a  loan  is  not  a  trans- 
action in  wealth,  but  is  based  upon  a  nation's  pro- 
ductivity,— a  lien  upon  the  future  labor  of  the  work- 
ers. The  proletariat  is  dominant,  economically;  all 
the  wealth  in  the  world  would  shrivel  into  nothing, 
and  Capitalism  collapse,  should  the  proletariat  use  its 
economic  dominance  in  its  own  class  interests  and 
against  the  ruling  class. 

But  while  the  war  has  proven  the  supremacy  of 
the  proletariat,  and  its  latent  revolutionary  energy,  the 
representatives  of  the  proletariat  during  the  war  have 
been  seduced  by  Imperialism.  They  have  acquiesced 
in  reaction,  they  have  acted  against  the  proletarian 
class. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  and  significant  events 
of  the  war  is  the  mobilizing  of  labor  and  Socialism 
consciously  into  the  service  of  Imperialism.  Gov- 
ernments have  calculatingly  and  as  a  policy  used 
labor  and  "Socialism"  in  their  activity,  used  them  to 
inculcate  in  the  workers  the  ideology  of  "carry  on!" 


REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

is,  in  a  measure,  indicates  the  power  of  the  prole- 
/fletariat;  but  it  equally  indicates  that  the  dominant 
/unionism  and  Socialism  are  betrayers  of  proletarian 
fi  interests. 

This  government  mobilization  of  the  dominant 
unionism  and  Socialism  against  the  revolutionary  pro- 
letariat was  a  decisive  development  of  the  war.  In 
the  oncoming  reconstruction  of  Socialism,  this  devel- 
opment will  be  a  determining  factor.  All  through  the 
war  dominant  Socialism  acted  against  fundamental 
Socialism,  betrayed  the  proletariat,  entered  the  serv- 
ice of  Imperialism.  The  proletarian  revolution  in 
Russia  had  to  dispose  of  its  own  moderate  Socialism 
before  it  could  dispose  of  the  bourgeoisie;  and  after 
the  proletarian  revolution  became  an  accomplished 
fact,  the  counter-revolution  against  the  Soviet  Repub- 
lic was  organized  and  directed  by  moderate  Socialism. 
But  not  alone  in  Russia :  in  all  other  nations,  moderate 
Socialism  acted  directly  and  aggressively  against  the 
proletarian  revolution  in  Russia;  intrigued  against  the 
Soviet  Republic  and  the  Bolsheviki.  The  proletarian 
revolution  in  Russia  was  a  victory  not  only  against 
Capitalism,  but  against  moderate  Socialism,  and 
moderate  Socialism,  appreciating  its  coming  disas- 
trous defeat,  united  with  Imperialism  against  the 
Workmen's  and  Peasants'  Republic,  against  the  revo- 
lutionary proletariat.  Its  attitude  toward  revolution- 
ary Russia  is  the  final,  inescapable  indictment  of  the 
infamous  attitude  of  moderate  Socialism  during  the 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  WAR  7 

war.  Prior  to  the  Russian  Revolution,  moderate  So- 
cialism might  have  justified  its  betrayal  of  trust;  after, 
its  attitude  constitutes  an  indictment  overwhelming  in 
its  force,  terrible  in  its  spirit,  and  inescapable  in  its 
proof.  Socialism  has  been  definitely  split;  a  new  and 
irrevocable  formulation  is  necessary  of  fundamental 
Socialism. 

The  defects  and  betrayals  that  have  characterized 
the  dominant  Socialism  during  the  war  were  equally 
existent  before  the  war,  if  less  apparent.  The  Inter- 
national did  not  collapse  during  the  war;  it  collapsed 
before  the  war,  the  war  simply  registering  and  em- 
phasizing the  collapse. 

There  is  no  complete  break  between  war  and  peace 
— each  is  the  expression  of  fundamental  economic 
and  political  forces.  The  war  marks  a  new  epoch  in 
Capitalism  only  in  this  sense,  that  it  is  the  sharp, 
definite,  catastrophic  expression  of  forces  operating 
in  society  during  peace,  and  that  precipitated  war. 
Through  war  these  forces  are  becoming  dominant 
forces,  where  previously  they  were  latent  or  only  in 
process  of  development.  The  assumption,  according- 
ly, that  war  marks  a  complete  break  with  the  preced- 
ing era  is  without  a  shred  of  historic  truth.  In  other 
words,  to  understand  adequately  the  politics  and  econ- 
omics of  Capitalism  during  war,  its  development  and 
tendencies  in  the  peace  era  preceding  must  be  borne 
in  mind ;  and  to  understand  the  conflict  of  policy  in  the 
Socialist  movement  during  the  war,  we  must  appreci- 


8  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

ate  the  fact  that  it  is  a  continuation  and  a  catastrophic 
expression  of  an  identical  conflict  before  the  war.  The 
form  may  change,  the  fundamental  issues  in  dispute 
are  identical,  sharpened  and  emphasized  by  events. 

Socialist  policy,  whatever  apparently  startling 
changes  it  may  show,  is  not  at  all  a  breaking  with  the 
immediate  past;  the  break  with  the  revolutionary  pur- 
poses of  Socialism  was  made  years  ago.  Socialist 
policy  during  the  war  is  a  direct  result  of  the  policy 
of  yesterday,  and  can  be  considered  only  in  that  light. 
Peace  and  war — they  are  fundamentally  identical, 
and  each  requires  the  same  general  course  of  revolu- 
tionary Socialist  action. 

The  really  great  changes  produced  by  the  war,  as 
developments  of  a  previous  tendency  at  work  in  so- 
ciety, are  economic  and  political,  not  military.  Nor 
do  these  changes  affect  simply  the  temporary  mobiliza- 
tion of  labor,  industry  and  government  for  purposes 
of  war.  Their  scope  is  larger  and  more  permanent. 
The  changes  are  not  simply  technical,  but  social  and 
political;  they  do  not  consist  in  temporary  adjust- 
ments of  institutions  and  power,  but  in  a  radical  al- 
teration of  their  character.  Moreover,  the  social- 
economic  relations  of  classes  are  being  revolutionized, 
and  consequently  their  economic  and  political  power, 
including  the  means  of  expression  of  their  class  in- 
terests. Prior  to  the  war  this  alteration  was  being 
accomplished;  it  is  being  completed  by  the  pressure 
of  the  war. 


SOCIALISM  AND  THE  WAR  9 

The  dominant  fact  in  this  war  is  Imperialism.  Im- 
perialism is  the  animating  and  unifying  tendency  of 
all  events;  and  Imperialism  is  itself  the  cause  and 
effect  of  the  tremendous  changes  that  are  being 
wrought  in  the  economic,  social  and  political  structure 
of  Capitalism. 

The  facts  of  contemporary  political  development 
are  incomprehensible  unless  related  to  Imperialism. 
And  it  is  a  mistake  of  the  first  importance  to  consider 
Imperialism  simply  in  relation  to  war.  The  interna- 
tional aspects  of  Imperialism — the  export  of  capital, 
the  struggle  for  investment  markets,  raw  materials 
and  undeveloped  territory,  and  war — are  not  alone 
important;  the  decisive  factor  is  the  alteration  of  class 
relations  and  class  power  that  Imperialism  produces 
in  each  particular  nation.  The  internal  and  interna-, 
tional  aspects  of  Imperialism  are  one,  develop  and  / 
supplement  each  other.  To  consider  Imperialism  in 
its  international  aspect  alone  is  to  misunderstand  its 
nature  and  to  cripple  our  power  of  fighting  effectively 
against  it  and  for  Socialism. 

Not  the  least  vital  feature  of  Imperialism  is  its  in- 
fluence on  Socialism.  If  the  social-economic  and 
class  relations  of  Capitalism  are  being  altered  by  Im- 
perialism, it  means  that  Socialism  must  necessarily 
undergo  a  tactical  transformation  and  reconstruction 
in  order  to  adapt  itself  to  the  new  conditions. 

The  war  and  Imperialism  pose  the  problem:  either 
Imperialism  and  war,  or  Socialism  and  the  new  order. 


10  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

The  war  marks  the  violent  efforts  of  Capitalism  and 
Imperialism  to  break  through  the  multiplying  con- 
tradictions of  a  decaying  class  system.  That  is  the 
general  formulation  of  the  problem.  Specifically, 
and  more  important,  the  problem  assumes  this  form: 
either  the  proletariat  must  repudiate  moderate  Social- 
ism and  accept  revolutionary  Socialism,  or  Imperial- 
ism will  become  impregnable,  and  drag  the  whole 
world  through  a  new  series  of  wars  irresistibly  on 
toward  the  collapse  of  all  civilization. 


II 

IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM 


Imperialism  characterizes  the  new,  the  final  stage 
of  Capitalism.  It  characterizes,  equally,  the  unity 
of  all  the  forces  of  Capitalism  into  a  new  and  more 
formidable  instrument  of  conquest  and  spoliation,  the 
final  desperate  maneuvre  of  Capitalism  to  prevent  its 
utter  disintegration  and  collapse.1  Imperialism,  ac- 
cordingly, is  a  fundamental  manifestation  of  Capi-j 
talism,  Capitalism  at  the  climax  of  its  development^ 

This  fundamental  character  of  Imperialism  is  the 
decisive  factor  in  contemporary  world-development. 
All  forces  and  all  tendencies,  all  aspirations  of  Capi- 
talism, are  being  merged  into  the  new  imperialistic 
epoch,  now  definitely  established  as  the  dominant  ex- 
pression of  Capitalism.  This  dominance  is  not  a  con- 
sequence of  the  war,  but  the  war  is  a  consequence  of 

1      hnTerialism   is   a   specific   historical   stage   of   Capitalism.      Iti   peculiarities  are 
threefold:   Imperialism  means    (1)    monopolistic   Capitalism;    (2)    parasitic,   or  stagnai 
Capitalism;   and    (3)    dying   Capitalism.    .    .    .      ImperUlism,    the   most   advanced    staj 
of    Capitalism    in   America    and    Europe,    and    later   of   Asia,    became    '""*    Developed 
in  the  period  from  1898  to  1914.     The  Spanish-  American  War   (1898),   the  Anglo-Boer 
War    (1900-1902),    the    Russo-Japanese    War    (1904-1905),   and    the    economic    crisis   in 
Europe    (1910),   are   the   chief   historical   milestones   of   this   new   era   of   univers 
tory.—  N.  Lenin,   "Imperialism  and   the   Socialist   Schwm,"  Sbornik  Sotiial-Demokrata, 


. 
December,    1916. 

11 


12  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

the  dominance  of  Imperialism.  As  a  major  or  minor 
factor,  Imperialism  controls  the  policy  of  states,  and 
determines  alignments  in  the  social  struggle.  Eco- 
nomically and  historically,  the  characteristics  of  Im- 
perialism justify  its  designation  as  a  new  stage  of 
Capitalism,  not  an  accidental  or  transitory  manifes- 
tation. 

But  this  characterization  of  Imperialism  is  not  gen- 
erally accepted.  Among  the  liberals,  and  among  the 
liberal-"Socialists,"  Imperialism  is  considered  a 
temporary  product  of  Capitalism,  that  may  be  dis- 
posed of  upon  the  basis  of  Capitalism.  The  govern- 
ment Socialists  in  all  belligerent  nations,  who  repre- 
sent groups  of  the  working  class  seduced  by  Imperial- 
ism, accept  wholly  the  conception  of  modifying  and 
ultimately  disposing  of  the  antagonisms  of  Imperial- 
ism upon  the  basis  of  Capitalism:  their  policy  of  so- 
cial-reformism is  a  policy  that  depends  upon  Impe- 
rialism, is  a  phase  of  social-Imperialism,  and  they 
wish  to  perpetuate  the  policy  of  social-Imperialism, 
while  avoiding  its  horrors.  Imperialism  is  conceived 
as  being  fundamentally  alien  to  Capitalism,  as  the 
product  of  particular  capitalist  and  militarist  inter- 
ests, and  not  an  expression  of  unified  Capitalism. 
This  conception  constitutes  a  total  misconception  of 
the  historical  character  of  Imperialism;  it  is,  more- 
over, an  expression  of  petit  bourgeois  Socialism, 
which,  because  of  its  policy  of  reformism,  must  adapt 
itself  to  Capitalism  and  avoid  the  revolutionary  strug- 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  13 

gle.  The  characterization  of  Imperialism  as  a  defin- 
ite stage  of  Capitalism  goes  to  the  heart  of  contem- 
porary problems,  and  of  the  revolutionary  recon- 
struction of  Socialism. 

Imperialism  is  the  contemporary  expression  of  the 
requirements  of  dominant  Capitalism.  Industrial 
monopoly,  finance-capital,  the  whole  process  of  capi- 
talist production  as  an  historical  category,  all  layers 
of  the  ruling  class,  the  policy  of  social-reformism,  are 
now  dependent  upon  the  adventures  and  conquests  of 
Imperialism,  financial,  industrial,  and  military.  The 
rapid  development  of  Capitalism  nationally  has  sim- 
ultaneously limited  its  base  internationally; the  broad- 
ening of  economic  opportunity  of  one  nation  circum- 
scribes the  opportunity  of  a  competing  nation.  While 
Capitalism  is  organized  nationally  and  functions  na- 
tionally, capitalist  economy  is  becoming,  is  now  de- 
pendent upon  the  facts  of  international  production. 
Capitalism  attempts  to  solve  this  contradiction  through 
Imperialism,  apparently  successfully,  but  actually 
multiplying  the  contradictions  of  Capitalism.  Com- 
peting Imperialism  clashes  with  competing  Imperial- 
ism; and  the  whole  of  Capitalism  becomes  absorbed 
in  this  clash,  since  the  prosperity  of  a  nation  depends 
upon  its  Imperialism.  Imperialism  is  the  character- 
istic and  unifying  tendency  of  the  final  stage  of  Capi- 
talism. 

Out  of  competitive  Capitalism  develops  monopol- 
istic Capitalism;  and  out  of  monopolistic  Capitalism 


14  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

develops  Imperialism.  The  policy,  the  tendency,  the 
ideologic-political  forms  of  the  imperialistic  epoch 
differ  in  fundamentals  from  the  epoch  of  competi- 
tive Capitalism.  This  alone  characterizes  Imperial- 
ism as  a  definite  stage  of  Capitalism.  Moreover,  as 
the  final  stage  of  Capitalism,  Imperialism  imposes  a 
stern  obligation  upon  Socialism — the  obligation  of 
Socialism  adapting  itself  to  the  revolutionary  re- 
quirements of  the  new  epoch. 

II 

The  economic  power  of  motion  in  capitalistic  so- 
ciety is  the  accumulation  of  capital  through  competi- 
tion, and  the  development  of  monopoly  through  the 
accumulation  of  capital.  This  process  is  dependent 
upon  the  production  of  sujjiLiis-A5Iue4>yJLhe  workers. 
Capital  yields  profits,  which  are  invested  and  in  turn 
become  capital.  The  accumulation  of  capital  accele- 
rates industrial  expansion,  and  this  expansion  reacts 
upon  and  accelerates  the  accumulation  of  capital  and 
the  development  of  monopoly. 

Historically,  Capitalism  comes  into  being  through 
the  expropriation  of  the  peasantry  from  the  soil, 
(by  the  brutal  and  infamous  means  of  fire  and  sword,) 
the  creation  of  a  large  body  of  proletarians  which  be- 
come the  human  raw  material  of  industry,  and  the 
industrial  development  of  the  internal  market.  For 
a  definite  period,  the  requirements  of  the  home  mar- 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  15 

ket  are  largely  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  industrial 
expansion  and  accumulation.  The  principle  of  com- 
petition, of  laissez  faire,  dominates  the  activity  of 
Capitalism,  as  well  as,  largely,  the  relations  of  nations 
to  each  other.  The  development  of  the  national 
economy  absorbs  the  capital  and  the  efforts  of  the 
entrepreneur;  capital  is  permanently  invested  in 
means  of  production,  in  machinery,  through  which 
the  internal  market  is  developed  and  the  nation  be- 
comes industrialized.  Trade  between  nations  consists 
of  the  export  and  import  of  consumable  goods.  But 
capital  accumulates,  and  is  invested  in  more  means 
of  production;  and  the  point  is  finally  reached  where 
the  home  market,  the  strictly  national  economy2,  no 
longer  serves  the  purposes  of  industrial  expansion,  no 
longer  absorbs  the  masses  of  investment  capital,  and 
the  new  means  of  production  which  become  the  per- 
manent form  of  the  investment  of  capital. 

The   accumulation   of  capital,   in   one   sense,   de- 
pends upon  the  existence  of  low  wages,  which  in  itself 


2.  The  development  and  exploitation  of  the  home  market  mean  a  revolutionary 
struggle  against  Feudalism, — the  bourgeois  revolution.  At  the  earlier  periods  of 
capitalist  society,  when  there  was  no  class  conscious  proletariat,  the  bourgeoisie 
could  afford  to  engage  in  this  revolutionary  struggle.  But  a  nation  that  enters 
the  orbit  of  capitalist  production  definitely  during  the  imperialistic  epoch  pursue* 
a  different  course.  In  Russia,  for  example,  the  bourgeoisie  was  afraid  to  develop 
intensively  its  home  market,  as  it  meant  a  revolutionary  struggle  against  Czarism; 
the  bourgeoisie  feared  this  struggle,  because  it  might  offer  an  opportunity  to  the 
proletariat  and  proletarian  peasantry  to  assume  power — as  has  actually  been  the 
case.  The  Russian  bourgeoisie,  accordingly,  dealt  gingerly  with  the  home  market 
and  sought  means  of  exploitation  and  accumulation  of  capital  through  the  control 
of  undeveloped  countries — Imperialism.  This  imperialistic  character  of  the  Russian 
bourgeoisie  explains  many  of  the  events  in  the  Russian  Revolution.  Where  in  other 
countries  Imperialism  is  the  product  of  an  over-developed  Capitalism,  in  Russia,  as 
in  Japan,  it  is  influenced  by  an  under-developed  Capitalism.  "In  Japan  and  in 
Russia,"  says  Lenin,  "the  monopoly  of  military  power,  a  measureless  extent  of 
territory,  or  an  unusual  opportunity  to  exploit  native  populations,  partly  complement 
and  partly  replace  the  monopoly  of  present-day  finance-capital." 


16  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

creates  the  contradictions  inherent  in  the  accumulation 
of  capital  and  the  capitalist  economy.  The  prevailing 
low  wages — the  extraction  of  surplus  value — implies 
the  inability  of  a  nation  to  consume  all  the  products 
it  produces.  These  surplus  products  are  exported  to 
other  countries  at  a  lower  stage  of  industrial  develop- 
ment; but  thereupon  these  countries  emerge  definitely 
into  the  capitalist  mode  of  production,  become  indus- 
trialized, and  produce  a  mass  of  surplus  products  of 
their  own.  "When  the  newcomer  within  the  family 
of  capitalist  nations  turns  from  a  customer  of  its 
older  capitalistic  brethren  into  their  competitor,  it 
does  not  do  so  in  all  fields  of  production.  On  the 
contrary,  it  continues  to  remain  their  customer  for  a 
long  time  to  come.  Only  it  does  not  buy  from  them 
any  more  textiles  and  other  consumable  goods  as  it 
used  to,  but  machinery  and  means  of  production  gen- 
erally. The  competition  of  the  newcomer  in  the  pro- 
duction of  consumable  goods  leads  to  a  shifting  of 
production  in  the  older — industrially  more  developed 
— countries.  These  countries  now  produce,  propor- 
tionately, more  machinery  and  other  artificial  means 
of  production  and  fewer  consumable  goods."3 

This  development  proceeds  upon  the  basis  of  the 
accumulation  of  capital,  which  accumulates  at  a  ter- 
rific pace.  But  this  creates  a  mass  of  surplus  capital, 
which  is  not  absorbed  by  the  development  of  the  inter- 
nal economy,  exactly  as  surplus  products  are  not  ab- 

3.     L.  B.  Boudin.  Socialism  and  War. 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  17 

sorbed.  An  impetus  is  provided  this  development 
by  the  appearance  of  monopoly,  which  unifies  the 
industrial  process  of  a  nation,  and  aspires  after  world 
monopoly.  Monopolistic  Capitalism,  having  monop- 
olized the  national  economy,  becomes  international 
and  tries  to  monopolize  the  investment  markets  and 
sources  of  raw  material  throughout  the  world.  This 
again  accelerates  the  accumulation  of  capital,  the  pro- 
duction of  means  of  production,  the  necessity  of  de- 
veloping new  industrial  markets  to  absorb  the  accum- 
ulating mass  of  surplus  capital  and  means  of  pro- 
duction.4 An  impasse  is  reached — capitalist  produc- 
tion must  break  its  national  bonds  and  become  inter- 
national; new  spheres  of  economy  must  be  secured 
for  industrial  development,  to  absorb  surplus  capital 
and  means  of  production ;  new  sources  of  raw  material 
must  be  conquered  and  monopolized,  a  new  capital- 
ism must  be  "created"  and  monopolized  by  the  older 
Capitalism  in  order  to  prevent  its  disintegration  and 
collapse.  It  is  a  desperate  situation,  and  Capitalism 
resorts  to  desperate  means  to  avert  impending  col- 
lapse. The  peaceful  economic  partition  of  the  world 

4.  Monopoly  appears  in  five  principal  forms:  (1)  cartells,  syndicates  and  trusts: 
in  these  the  concentration  of  production  has  reached  the  stage  that  creates  monopolis- 
tic leagues  of  capitalists;  (2)  the  monopoly  position  of  the  great  banks:  three,  four 
or  five  gigantic  banks  dominate  the  entire  economic  life  of  America,  France  and 
Germany;  (3)  the  conquest  of  the  sources  of  raw  materials  by  the  trust  and  the 
financial  oligarchy  (finance-capital  means  monopolistic  industrial  capital  united  with 
banking  capital)  ;  (4)  the  beginnings  of  the  partition  of  the  world  (economic)  by 
the  international  cartells:  of  such  international  cartells,  controlling  the  whole  world 
market,  and  doing  it  "amicably"  (until  war  began  to  redistribute  it),  there  are 
already  more  than  one  hundred;  the  export  of  capital,  a  phenomenon  distinct  from 
the  export  of  goods  under  pro-monopolistic  Capitalism,  is  closely  allied  with  the 
economic  and  politico-territorial  division  of  the  world;  (5)  the  territorial  division 
of  the  world  (colonial  era)  has  been  completed, — N,  Lenin,  "Imperialism  and  the 
Socialist  Schism,"  loc.  cit. 


18  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

proceeds  feverishly;  but  each  partition  produces  new 
appetities,  and  narrows  the  economic  opportunity  of 
competing  capitalistic  nations.  Contradictions  mul- 
tiply, antagonisms  assume  a  more  impelling  and  ir- 
reconcilable character;  and  the  ultimate  arbitrament 
of  the  issues  in  dispute  becomes  the  arbitrament  of 
the  bayonet.  Capitalism  emerges  definitely  into  a 
new  phase  of  its  existence, — Imperialism:  the  climax 
of  Capitalism,  the  final  stage  of  its  supremacy. 

This  new  stage  of  Capitalism  completely  alters  the 
colonial  policy  of  the  great  industrial  nations.  Com- 
mercial colonialism  was  a  factor  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance in  the  development  of  Capitalism.  The 
wealth  filched  from  the  colonies  becomes  an  accele- 
rator of  the  accumulation  of  capital  in  the  mother- 
country,  contributes  to  the  development  of  the  internal 
industrial  technology.  At  first  the  process  is  simply 
one  of  stealing  gold,  silver,  and  other  precious  articles 
from  the  natives,  who  are  exterminated;  but  this  pol- 
icy, persisted  in,  produces  an  industrial  stagnation  in 
the  mother-country  that  brings  about  its  ruin,  as  in 
Spain.  The  country  is  choked  in  its  own  ill-gotten 
wealth.  It  is  only  where  this  appropriation  of  wealth 
coincides  with  a  normal  development  of  industry,  as 
in  England,  that  it  promotes  Capitalism.  This  devel- 
opment produces  an  ever  increasing  mass  of  products, 
which  are  exported  to  the  colonies.  The  ability  of 
the  natives  to  consume  is  artificially  stimulated,  and 
they  are  compelled  to  use  products  which  their  primi- 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  19 

tive  minds  do  not  desire,  and  at  the  same  time  they 
are  put  to  work  to  produce  those  special  articles  re- 
quired by  the  nation  that  rules  them.  The  natives 
are  "civilized"  in  order  that  they  may  yield  profits. 

But  the  older  colonies  are  incompatible  with  the 
capitalist  mode  of  production,  which  pre-supposes  the 
expropriation  of  the  laborer.  Laborers  exported  to 
the  colonies  become  independent  and  refuse  to  sub- 
mit to  the  capitalist  mode  of  production,  preferring 
to  till  the  soil  which  is  abundant  and  secured  without 
cost.  The  trade  in  goods  of  developing  nations 
with  each  other  constitutes  a  more  efficient  means  of 
capitalist  accumulation.  Capitalism  begins  to  con- 
sider colonies  as  unprofitable,  and  they  are  largely 
retained  because  of  the  bureaucracy  of  officials  for 
whom  they  provide  employment,  and  because  of 
special  opportunities  for  robbery  given  to  a  few  mem- 
bers of  the  ruling  caste.  This  period,  however,  passes 
away  in  the  measure  that  the  capitalist  mode  of  pro- 
duction enters  a  new  phase.  The  colonies  establish 
an  organized  life;  the  import  of  products  is  supple- 
mented by  the  import  of  capital,  and  the  colonies  be- 
come active  producing  units  by  the  import  of  means 
of  production.  The  colonies  are  now  active  indus- 
trial producers,  absorbing  surplus  capital;  and  the 
mother-country  now  fights  to  retain  these  colonies. 

It  is  precisely  the  nations  with  an  old  established 
colonial  system,  such  as  England,  that  first  pass  into 
the  epoch  of  Imperialism;  or  a  nation,  such  as  the 


20  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

United  States,  that  has  at  its  doors  an  undeveloped 
territory  which  plays  the  part  of  a  colony.  The  col- 
onial system  under  Imperialism  under-goes  another 
change,  and  that  is  the  practical  cessation  of  immigra- 
tion to  these  domains.  The  natives  are  no  longer  ex- 
terminated to  make  room  for  the  whites,  but  are  ex- 
propriated from  the  soil  and  turned  into  wage-labor- 
ers, become  the  human  raw  material  of  industry,  his- 
torically the  basis  of  the  capitalist  mode  of  produc- 
tion. The  migration  of  men  to  the  colonies  is  sup- 
plemented by  the  migration  of  capital,  of  means  of 
production;  occupied  territory  is  not  to  be  colonized, 
but  "developed"  and  exploited.  The  "pressure  of 
population,"  by  which  some  explain  the  phenomenon 
of  Imerialism,  is  a  myth;  Germany,  which  has  been 
striving  to  carve  out  a  colonial  empire,  has  no  desire 
to  export  its  people,  but  to  export  its  capital  and  ma- 
chinery. France  has  been  active  in  the  struggle  for 
territory,  and  France  has  no  surplus  population  to 
export. 

Imperialism  does  not  concern  itself  with  colonies 
alone.  It  extends  its  scope  to  countries  whiich  can  in 
no  sense  be  colonial  possessions,  but  which  because  of 
an  inferior  stage  of  industrial  development,  provide 
opportunity  for  the  investment  of  capital  and  the  in- 
troduction of  a  modern  industrial  technology.  Pro- 
tectorates and  "spheres  of  influence"  become  the  new 
means  of  aggrandizing  national  capital;  or  if  these 
are  insufficient  the  country  may  be  occupied,  in  order 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  21 

to  assure  stability  and  normal  development.  France 
did  not  occupy  Morocco  in  order  to  colonize  it,  but 
to  assure  French  investors  security  and  a  monopoly 
of  the  profits  that  come  from  developments.  The 
great  industrial  nations  transform  their  colonial  pos- 
sessions into  producers  and  absorbers  of  surplus  capi- 
tal; and  reach  out  to  develop  any  other  part  of  the 
world,  civilized  and  uncivilized,  in  which  the  invest- 
ment of  capital  will  yield  more  than  average  profits. 
Not  the  least  attractive  feature  of  this  policy  for  the 
capitalist  is  the  existence  of  a  mass  of  low-priced 
workers  in  an  undeveloped  territory — low  wages  be- 
ing a  particularly  powerful  accelerator  of  the  accum- 
ulation of  capital,  other  things  being  equal. 

Having  revolutionized  industry  within  its  own  na- 
tional borders,  accordingly,  Capitalism  now  revolu- 
tionizes industry  within  the  borders  of  undeveloped 
nations,  creates  a  new  proletariat  and  a  new  Capital- 
ism which  become  the  base  upon  which  are  erected 
new  systems  of  empires,  financial  and  military.  Hith- 
erto, all  that  these  undeveloped  lands  were  required 
to  do  was  to  purchase  the  consumable  products  of 
the  great  industrial  nations;  but  this  is  now  insuffici- 
ent, and  Capitalism  begins  to  develop  and  exploit 
the  new  markets  through  the  investment  of  capital 
and  the  introduction  of  machinery.  It  becomes  no 
longer  sufficient,  for  example,  that  Mexico  sell  the 
United  States  its  agricultural  products  and  raw  ma- 
terials, and  that  it  purchase  the  manufactured  pro- 


22  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

ducts  of  the  United  States.  The  Mexican  home  mar- 
ket must  be  developed ;  it  must  absorb  the  surplus  cap- 
ital of  United  States  Capitalism,  purchase  its  iron 
goods  and  means  of  production,  which  become  domi- 
nantly  the  form  of  investment  of  accumulated  capital. 
Then  comes  the  period  of  the  investment  of  American 
capital  in  Mexico,  the  building  of  railways,  docks, 
and  factories  by  American  enterprise  and  American 
money.  This  is  the  export  of  capital,  the  animating 
factor  in  Imperialism.  The  domination  and  exploit- 
ation of  undeveloped  peoples  becomes  the  character- 
istic of  parasitic  Capitalism.  The  climax  of  this 
development  is  a  change  in  the  economic  policy  of  a 
nation,  in  the  character  of  its  politics.5 

The  great  fact  of  international  economics  during 
the  past  thirty  years  is  the  investment  of  British, 
French,  German  and  American  capital  in  the  unde- 
veloped sections  of  the  world, — China,  Egypt,  Mexi- 
co, Central  and  South  America,  Africa,  the  Balkans 


5.  To  the  landed  class  ....  broad  acres  and  numerous  serfs  are  the  most 
natural  expressions  of  wealth,  it  conquers  and  arms  to  acquire  estates.  With  the 
development  of  manufactures  and  oversea  trade,  these  cruder  views  are  discarded.  The 
landed  class  retains  for  a  time  its  hereditary  bias  to  think  in  terms  of  actual  pos- 
session. But  little  by  little  the  commercial  standpoint  modifies  the  attitude 
•ven  of  the  aristocracy.  A  trading  community  like  Early  Victorian  England,  which 
can  still  profitably  employ  all  its  capital  in  its  mills  and  ships,  becomes  indifferent 
to  the  acquisition  of  territory,  and  even  tends  to  regard  the  colonies  previously  ac- 
quired as  a  useless  encumbrance.  That  was  the  normal  state  of  mind  of  our  com- 
mercial classes  during  the  middle  years  of  last  century.  They  dealt  in  goods,  and 
in  order  to  sell  goods  abroad,  it  was  not  necessary  either  to  colonize  or  to  conquer. 
To  this  phase  belongs'  the  typical  foreign  policy  of  Liberalism,  with  its  watchwords 
of  peace,  non-intervention,  and  free  trade.  The  third  phase,  the  modern  phase, 
begins  when  capital  has  accumulated  in  large  fortunes,  when  the  rate  of  interest  at 
home  begins  to  fall,  and  the  discovery  is  made  that  investments  abroad,  in  unsettled 
countries  with  populations  more  easily  exploited  than  our  own,  offer  swifter  and 
bigger  returns.  It  is  the  epoch  of  concession  hunting,  of  coolie  labor,  of  chartered 
companies,  of  railway  construction,  of  loans  to  semi-civilized  Powers,  of  the  "open- 
ing up"  of  "dying  empires."  At  this  phase  the  export  of  capital  has  become  to 
the  ruling  class-  more  important  and  more  attractive  than  the  export  of  goods.  The 
Manchester  school  disappears,  and  even  Liberals  accept  Imperialism. — H.  N.  Brails- 
ford,  The  War  of  Steel  and  Gold. 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  23 

and  Asia  Minor;  a  process  of  investment  which  rap- 
idly emerged  into  definite  Imperialism. " 

But  this  purely  economic  fact  goes  hand  in  hand 
with  a  vital  political  fact — the  struggle  for  and  ex- 
tension of  political  control  over  these  undeveloped 
lands  by  the  nations  exporting  capital.  These  nations 
do  not  simply  compete  in  the  export  of  capital,  but 
a  fierce  rivalry  arises  to  secure  political  control  in 
the  countries  where  capital  is  invested,  a  control  that 
constitutes  the  mechanism  of  monopolistic  Capi- 
talism. The  reason  for  this  is  dual: 

1. — It  does  not  matter  so  much  to  a  capitalist 
whether  a  country  has  a  stable  government  or  not,  as 
long  as  he  is  simply  selling  its  people  consumable 
products.  Such  a  country  may  be  convulsed  by  revo- 
lutions, disorder  may  reign,  but  it  matters  little  if  only 
the  products  are  paid  for,  and  that  is  the  end  of  the 
transaction.  As  soon,  however,  as  the  foreign  capi- 
talist invests  money  in  the  countrty,  either  as  loans 
to  the  state  or  in  "projects  of  development,"  its  gov- 
ernment and  social  order  become  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance. Revolutions,  and  a  pre-capitalistic  social 
order  generally,  disorganize  industry,  and  the  in- 
vested capital  yields  no  profits;  may,  moreover,  be- 
come a  dead  loss.  The  export  of  capital  and  its  in- 
vestment immediately  develops  its  ideology, — a  hor- 
ror of  revolutions,  the  lamenting  of  disorders,  a  Cru- 
sader's enthusiasm  for  making  over  the  country  in 
the  image  of  sacrosanct  Capitalism,  and  the  pious 


24  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

desire  that  the  people  should  live  in  "peace"  and 
"prosperity,"  under  the  domination  of  a  "superior 
race"  if  necessary.  The  capitalist,  accordingly,  brings 
pressure  to  bear  on  his  own  government  to  maintain 
order  in  the  country  where  his  money  is  invested,  and 
the  government  becomes  guarantor  of  his  investments. 
Imperialistic  governments  unblushingly  and  un- 
ashamed develop  into  agencies  to  collect  debts  and 
promote  investments;  the  army  and  navy  become  ad- 
juncts of  the  banks  and  of  investment  capital.  It  was 
the  boast  of  imperial  Rome  that  it  protected  its  citi- 
zens wherever  they  might  wander;  it  is  the  pride  of 
imperialistic  governments  that  the  capital  of  their 
citizens  is  protected  wherever  it  may  be  invested. 
These  governments  try  to  prevail  upon  a  backward 
country  to  maintain  order  and  the  stability  of  indus- 
trial activity;  this  failing,  a  protectorate  is  established 
or  the  country  bodily  annexed.  Peace  and  prosperity 
prevail — for  the  investor! 

2. — Finance  capital,  which  is  the  factor  behind 
Imperialism,  is  essentially  monopolistic,  the  nerve- 
center  of  monopolistic  Capitalism.  The  investment 
markets  of  the  world  (and  sources  of  raw  material) 
are  limited,  and  each  national  Capitalism  seeks  their 
control  for  itself  and  the  exclusion  of  others.  The 
finance  and  politics  of  Imperialism  are  indissolubly 
linked,  and  the  political  control  of  a  backward  coun- 
try is  indispensable  to  the  purposes  of  Imperialism. 
There  ensues,  accordingly,  a  struggle  between  nation- 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  25 

al  Capitalism  not  only  for  investment  markets,  but 
for  their  political  control.  This  is  the  meaning  of 
the  Franco-German  clash  over  Morocco;  Anglo-Ger- 
man rivalry  in  Mesopotamia;  the  schemes  of  Japan 
for  control  in  China;  and  the  transformation  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  into  an  imperialistic  instrument  for 
establishing  American  capital  in  monopolistic  con- 
trol of  Central  and  South  America.6  The  financial 
and  the  political  facts,  moreover,  are  linked  together 
by  the  circumstances  that  it  is  not  simply  investments, 
but  the  development  of  a  country  which  is  the  ulti- 
mate and  necessary  object  of  Imperialism. 

In  the  operations  of  Imperialism  politics  are  in- 
separable from  economics.  The  Bagdad  Railway, 
by  which  German  Imperialism  sought  to  insure  its 
control  of  the  development  and  exploitation  of  Mesop- 
otamia and  Asia  Minor,  was  as  much  a  matter  of  poli- 


6.  The  early  Imperialism  of  the  United  States,  externally,  was  largely  a  reflex 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Originally  promulgated  as  a  bulwark  of  the  new  Republic, 
the  Monroe  Doctrine,  as  American  Capitalism  developed,  was  transformed  into  an 
imperialistic  instrument,  the  definite  impetus  in  this  direction  being  given  by  Presi- 
dent Cleveland,  and  completed  by  President  Roosevelt.  American  capital  and  enter- 
prises were  established  in  Central  America  and  the  Carribbeans,  the  result  being 
the  creation  of  a  de  facto  empire,  based  upon  the  financial  control  which  ultimately 
leads  to  political  domination.  In  his  Mobile  speech  in  1913  President  Wilson  opposed 
granting  oil  concessions  to  non-American  promoters  by  the  weaker  American  states, 
as  the  granting  of  these  concessions  was  a  menace  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  Here 
was  formulated  completely  the  imperialistic  phase  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  not  in- 
tended to  protect  the  political  independence  of  the  American  continents  against 
foreign  aggression,  but  to  aggrandize,  financially,  economically  and  politically,  the 
Imperialism  of  the  United  States  as  against  the  other  nations  of  the  world.  The 
rapacious  expression  of  this  doctrine  is  shown  in  the  complete  subjection  of  the 
Republics  of  Central  America  and  the  Carribbeans,  completed  and  consolidated  dur- 
ing the  "liberal"  administration  of  Woodrow  Wilson.  This  administration  tried 
to  project  a  Pan-Americanism  in  the  interest  of  American  Imperialism,  the  chief 
purpose  of  which  was  to  secure  economic  and  governmental  stability,  as,  in  the  words 
of  Mr.  Wilson,  "revolution  tears  up  the  very  roots  of  everything  that  makes  life 
go  steadily  forward  and  the  light  grow  from  generation  to  generation."  This  "Pan- 
Americanism"  is,  in  a  measure,  an  off-shoot  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine;  but  it  is  a 
contradiction,  for  as  long  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine  prevails,  which  is  a  strictly  na- 
tional doctrine,  any  attempt  at  Pan-Americanism  is  simply  a  scheme  to  promote 
the  Imperialism  of  the  United  States.  This  Pan-Americanism  and  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine are  merging  into  the  definite  continental  expression  of  American  Imperialism. 


26  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

tics,  if  not  more  so,  as  of  finance;  and  it  was  this 
feature  that  produced  the  diplomatic  clash  between 
Germany  and  Great  Britain,  which  prevented  the  rail- 
way being  completed.  Military  conquest  is  a  means 
of  promoting  Imperialism,  and  the  operations  of  Im- 
perialism, through  control  of  territory,  railways,  etc., 
are  calculated  to  promote  ultimate  conquest.  Hence 
the  political  character  of  Imperialism  and  the  an- 
tagonisms it  develops  between  states.  The  loans  that 
have  from  time  to  time  been  granted  to  China  by  the 
Great  Powers  have  been  political  transactions  in  which 
finance,  as  an  immediate  factor  and  purpose,  played 
a  secondary  role;  the  loans  were  used  to  secure  pol- 
itical or  territorial  concessions  from  China;  and  it 
was  through  the  medium  of  these  political  loans  that 
national  sovereignty  largely  passed  out  of  the  hands 
of  China  into  the  control  of  these  other  nations.  Nor 
were  these  loans  granted  by  finance  alone,  but  by 
finance  acting  in  co-operation  with  its  particular  na- 
tional government.  Finance  promotes  politics  and 
politics  promotes  finance. 

The  export  of  capital  to  an  undeveloped  country, 
whether  it  assumes  the  form  of  loans  to  the  Chinese 
government  or  the  building  of  the  Bagdad  Railway, 
does  not  end  with  the  particular  immediate  transac- 
tion. This  immediate  transaction,  it  is  true,  absorbs 
a  certain  amount  of  surplus  capital;  but  it  is  second- 
ary in  importance  to  ultimate  purposes,  to  the  sub- 
sequent absorption  of  surplus  capital.  The  Bagdad 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  27 

Railway  constituted  a  means  by  which  the  whole 
region  of  Mesopotamia  and  Asia  Minor  was  to  be 
developed  industrially,  a  development  absorbing  new 
surplus  capital  and  products;  it  was  to  act  much  as 
the  great  transcontinental  railway  systems  of  the 
United  States, — to  open  up  new  territory  for  indus- 
trial use  and  prepare  the  way  for  intensive  develop- 
ment and  exploitation.  It  was  this  subsequent  de- 
velopment which  was  to  justify  the  Bagdad  Railway, 
— the  opening  up  of  a  new  internal  market,  the  devel- 
opment of  a  modern  industrial  technology  in  these 
capitalistically  arid  wastes,  and  consequently  the  ab- 
sorption of  large  masses  of  German  capital  and  means 
of  production.  The  political  privileges  wrung  from 
China — usually  "concessions"  and  "spheres  of  in- 
fluence"— were  claims  upon  the  natural  and  indus- 
trial development  and  exploitation,  which  would  re- 
quire again  the  export  of  capital.  It  is  this  economic 
fact  that  produces  the  necessity  of  political  control  in 
an  undeveloped  country  that  is  the  objective  of  Im- 
perialism. 

Another  animating  cause  of  Imperialism,  of  minor 
or  major  importance  according  to  the  resources  of  a 
country,  is  the  competition  to  secure  raw  materials, 
particularly  iron,  oil  and  coal.  As  a  nation  reaches 
the  maturity  of  development  of  its  internal  market, 
it  reaches  the  point  where  itst  internal  raw  materials 
are  either  becoming  exhausted  or  are  insufficient  for 
its  industrial  purposes.  These  raw  materials  must 


28  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

be  secured  abroad,  in  undeveloped  countries.  Iron 
is  the  basis  of  the  modern  industrial  technology,  the 
constituent  element  in  the  production  of  means  of 
production,  and  oil  is  becoming  a  prime  factor  in 
transportation,  since  the  invention  of  the  Diesel  en- 
gine. A  supply  of  the  raw  materials  necessary  for 
industry,  constant  and  uninterrupted,  is  a  matter 
of  life  and  death  to  Capitalism.  In  the  earlier  Colon- 
ial era,  colonies  were  prized  in  the  measure  that  they 
possessed  silver  and  gold ;  in  the  iron  age  of  imperial- 
istic Capitalism,  iron  ore,  copper  and  other  industrial 
metals  are  of  utmost  necessity,  and  their  possession 
may  make  a  nation  rich  beyond  the  dreams  of  avarice. 
The  development  of  mines  in  undeveloped  countries 
performs  a  two-fold  function — it  absorbs  surplus  cap- 
ital, and  provides  the  mother-country  with  the  raw 
material  of  industry,  which  is  largely  converted  into 
means  of  production  for  export  to  undeveloped  coun- 
tries. China  is  simply  bursting  with  iron  ore  and 
other  metals,  and  Japan  is  hungry  for  their  possession, 
as  it  has  practically  none  within  its  own  territory; 
the  iron  ore  of  Morocco7  was  the  motive  of  the  desire 


7.  The  "trade"  of  Morocco,  if  by  that  word  is  meant  the  exchange  of  European 
manufactured  goods  against  the  raw  produce  of  its  agriculture,  is  at  the  best  in- 
considerable ....  What  matters  in  Morocco  is  the  wealth  of  its  virgin  mines  .... 
A  German  firm,  the  Mannesmann  Brothers,  could  indeed  boast  that  it  had  obtained 
an  exclusive  concession  to  work  all  the  mines  of  Morocco  in  return  for  money  which 
it  had  lent  to  an  embarrassed  Sultan  during  its  civil  wars.  That  this  was  the  real 
issue  is  proved  by  the  terms  which  were  more  than  once  discussed  between  Paris 
and  Berlin  for  the  settlement  of  the  dispute.  A  "detente,"  or  provisional  settle- 
ment of  the  dispute  was  concluded  in  1910,  which  had  only  one  clause — that  German 
finance  would  share  with  French  finance  in  the  various  undertakings  and  companies 
which  aimed  at  "opening  up"  Morocco  by  ports,  railways,  mines,  and  other  public 
works.  No  effect  was  ever  given  to  this  undertaking,  and  German  irritation  at  the 
delays  of  French  diplomacy  and  French  finance  culminated  in  the  dispatch  of  the 
gunboat  Panther  to  Agadir  as  a  prelude  to  further  "conversations." — H.  N.  Brails- 
ford,  The  War  of  Steel  and  Gold. 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  29 

of  Germany  and  France  to  secure  control  in  that 
region;  the  inexhaustible  oil  wells  of  Mexico  have 
for  the  past  ten  years  been  the  source  of  a  bitter 
struggle  for  their  possession  between  American,  Brit- 
ish and  German  capital.  Bismarck  seized  Alsace- 
Lorraine  for  political,  territorial  and  dynastic  pur- 
poses; but  to-day  Germany  refuses  to  relinquish  these 
provinces  because,  other  reasons  aside,  they  are  rich 
in  iron  ore,  having  in  1913  produced  21,136,265 
metric  tons  .of  iron  ore  as  against  7,471,638  metric 
tons  produced  by  the  rest  of  Germany.  This  struggle 
for  raw  material,  particularly  iron  ore,  is,  together 
with  the  export  of  capital,  a  distinguishing  feature  of 
Imperialism  and  a  symptom  of  the  fact  that  national 
Capitalism  is  now  at  the  climax  of  its  development. 
Imperialism  is  a  process  of  expropriation — the  ex- 
propriation of  a  national  Capitalism  by  its  competi- 
tor. Imperialistic  Capitalism  may,  by  means  of  a 
particularly  perfected  monopoly,  engage  in  competi- 
tion against  a  rival  Capitalism  within  its  own  nation, 
and  expropriate  it  in  its  own  markets.  Moreover,  Im- 
perialism does  not  simply  covet  undeveloped  territory, 
but  may  annex  developed  territory,  providing  it  pos- 
sesses raw  materials  and  the  capacity  to  absorb  capi- 
tal. Powerful  industrial  and  financial  interests  in 
Germany  urge  the  annexation  of  Northern  France — 
the  metallurgical  and  manufacturing  centre  of 
France;  and  the  annexation  of  Belguim.  The  first 
would  strike  a  terrific  blow  at  French  Capitalism; 


30  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

the  second  would  expropriate  a  whole  national  Capi- 
talism and  aggrandize  German  Capitalism.  Detach- 
ing Alsace-Lorraine  from  Germany,  on  the  other  hand, 
would  mean  economic  disaster — unless  Germany  se- 
cured "compensation"  by  annexing  the  Baltic  prov- 
inces of  Russia,  which  are  rich  in  raw  materials. 
Monopoly — the  monopoly  of  a  particular  national 
Capitalism — would  be  established  in  the  conquered 
regions  by  means  of  the  expropriation  of  nascent  or 
dominant  Capitalism;  and,  this  monopoly  organized,  a 
new  struggle  would  emerge  for  world  monopoly  and 
world  power. 

HI 

Monopolistic  Capitalism  and  Imperialism  are 
necessarily  belligerent.  As  the  expropriation  of  one 
capitalist  by  another  was  a  means  for  the  accumula- 
tion of  capital,  so  the  destruction  of  capital  and  the 
expropriation  of  a  competing  Capitalism  through  war 
becomes  a  means  for  the  perpetuation  of  Capitalism. 
In  this  desperate  way  is  Capitalism  maneuvring  to 
prevent  a  decrepit  system  from  tottering  to  its  col- 
lapse. 

In  the  process  of  imperialistic  competition,  gov- 
ernments and  their  diplomacy  and  armed  power  be- 
come conscious  and  active  agents  in  the  promotion 
of  the  Imperialism  of  their  particular  capitalist  class. 
In  ways  sinister  and  secret,  open  and  unashamed, 
governments  act  as  the  panders  of  Imperialism,  rap- 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  31 

ing  the  peace  of  the  world  and  the  independence  of 
peoples. 

This  competition  in  the  export  of  capital  is  finan- 
cial and  political;  and  being  political  and  promoted 
by  governments,  there  arises  a  situation  in  which  war 
becomes  a  perpetual  menace.  The  ultimate  economic 
fact  develops  an  ideology  and  a  justification, — the 
"white  man's  burden,"  the  "defense  of  small  nations," 
the  concept  of  a  "superior  race"  invested  with  the 
mission  of  imposing  its  "kultur"  upon  the  backward 
races,  the  aspiration  of  "making  the  world  safe  for 
democracy,"  and  the  "defense  of  the  nation  and  its 
institutions."  The  activity  of  diplomacy  and  a  re- 
course to  war  are  justified  through  these  ideologic 
concepts;  but,  in  fact,  it  is  the  economic  process  of 
the  export  of  capital  and  the  expansion  of  industry, 
jointly  with  the  necessity  of  crushing  rivals  by  armed 
force  and  securing  control  of  the  exploitation  of  the 
undeveloped  regions  of  the  world,  that  act  as  the 
driving  force  of  imperialistic  diplomacy  and  war. 

Imperialism  is  a  revolutionizing  factor;  it  sets  the 
world  in  turmoil  industrially  and  politically.  The  ex- 
port of  capital  and  the  monopolization  of  the  sources 
of  raw  materials,  being  an  absolute  necessity  to  an 
industrially  highly-developed  nation  dominated  by 
Capitalism,  the  interests  of  Imperialism  become  iden- 
tified with  the  interests  of  the  nation,  interpreted  by 
the  ruling  class ;  the  government  protects  and  advances 
these  interests  through  diplomatic  means;  but  a  point 


32  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

may  be  reached  where  none  of  the  antagonists  yield, 
when  the  forces  of  diplomacy  no  longer  reach  a  tem- 
porary solution,  and  the  interests  in  dispute  are  put 
to  the  arbitrament  of  the  sword.  Soldiers  slay  and 
destroy,  where  diplomats  intrigued. 

The  "armed  peace"  of  Imperialism  is  the  expres- 
sion of  the  quintessence  of  capitalist  hypocrisy  and 
rapacity.  Each  nation  dreads  war,  may  anxiously  at- 
tempt to  avert  war,  but  all  relentlessly  and  unavoid- 
ably pursue  a  policy  that  inevitably  brings  war.  The 
"armed  peace"  is  an  expression  of  the  status  quo;  but 
the  status  quo  limits  the  scope  of  Imperialism,  is  itself 
considered  an  "aggression,"  and  must  be  altered  by 
means  of  war.  The  horrors  of  this  "armed  peace," 
its  torturing  uncertainty,  dreads  and  burdens  are  such 
that  war  itself  becomes  a  sort  of  relief.  All  Imperial- 
ism cloaks  itself  in  the  garb  of  a  "civilizing  mission," 
and  all  Imperialism  produces  a  world  catastrophe 
that  drags  civilization  down  to  ruin.  Imperialism  is 
the  brutal  and  final  negation  of  all  the  ideal  claims 
of  capitalist  hypocrisy,  expressing  the  most  rapacious 
projects  in  all  history. 

Wars  waged  under  the  conditions  of  imperialistic 
Capitalism  present  features  of  new  and  epochal  sig- 
nificance. They  are  no  longer  national  wars  waged 
by  nations,  but  international  wars  waged  between 
groups  of  nations  for  international  imperialistic  pur- 
poses ;  they  are  wars  waged  not  to  preserve  the  nation 
but  to  break  through  the  hampering  limits  of  the  na- 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  33 

tion;  they  are  wars  which  are  determined,  not  ulti- 
mately but  immediately,  by  the  economics  of  produc- 
tive capacity,  and  which  organize  for  military  pur- 
poses the  whole  of  the  industrial  technology;  they 
are  wars  which  are  not  simply  waged  by  nations  but 
by  peoples,  because  of  a  partly  actual  and  largely 
fictitious  interest  of  all  the  people  in  the  war,  and 
the  pervasive  and  compulsive  ideology  of  Imperial- 
ism; and,  finally,  they  are  wars  which  require  and 
project  a  rigid  centralizing  control  of  the  process  of 
industry  by  the  government,  the  control  of  State  Capi- 
talism, for  their  prosecution.  And  it  is  precisely 
this  State  Capitalism,  the  social  characteristic  and 
political  expression  of  Imperialism,  that  is  the  dis- 
tinguishing feature  of  contemporary  capitalist  society. 
This  circumstance  alone  indicates  the  universal, 
the  fundamental  character  of  Imperialism  in  relation 
to  Capitalism.  But  it  indicates,  simultaneously,  the 
desperate  situation  of  Capitalism.  Imperialism  is  the 
expression  of  a  stagnant  Capitalism,  a  Capitalism  in 
process  of  disintegration  and  verging  on  collapse. 
"The  fact  that  Imperialism  means  Capitalism  in  a 
parasitic  or  stagnant  stage  is  apparent  from  the  ten- 
dency to  disintegration  which  is  characteristic  of  all 
private  ownership  of  the  means  of  production.  The 
distinction  between  republican  and  democratic  and 
monarchist-reactionary  imperialistic  bourgeoisie  is 
nullified  by  the  fact  that  both  are  rotting  away  while 
apparently  in  full  bloom  (which  by  no  means  pre- 


34  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

vents  a  striking  rapidity  of  capitalist  development  in 
certain  branches  of  industry,  or  in  certain  countries, 
or  in  certain  periods.)  In  the  second  place,  the  decay 
of  Capitalism  is  characterized  by  the  creation  of  a 
huge  rentier  class,  of  capitalists  who  live  by  'cutting 
coupons.'  In  the  four  advanced  imperialist  countries, 
England,  North  America,  France  and  Germany,  capi- 
tal, in  the  form  of  securities,  amounts  to  100  or  150 
milliards  of  francs,  which  involves  an  annual  in- 
come of  from  five  to  eight  milliards  per  country. 
In  the  third  place,  the  export  of  capital  is  Capitalism 
to  the  second  power.  In  the  fourth  place,  'finance- 
capital  aspires  to  domination,  not  to  freedom.'  Politi- 
cal reaction  all  along  the  line  is  peculiar  to  Imperial- 
ism: bribery,  readiness  to  be  purchased,  the  Panama 
case  in  all  its  forms.  In  the  fifth  place,  the  exploita- 
tion of  the  oppressed  nations,  indissolubly  associated 
with  a  policy  of  annexations,  and  particularly  the 
exploitation  of  colonies  by  a  handful  of  'great'  pow- 
ers, is  progressively  transforming  the  'civilized' 
world  into  a  parasite  on  the  backs  of  hundreds  of 
millions  of  uncivilized  people.  The  Roman  prole- 
tarian lived  at  society's  expense.  But  present-day 
society  lives  at  the  expense  of  its  proletariat.  This 
profound  observation  of  Sismondi  has  been  particu- 
larly emphasized  by  Marx.  Imperialism  has  some- 
what changed  the  situation.  The  privileged  layers  of 
the  proletariat  of  the  imperialistic  powers  are  living 
partly  at  the  expense  of  the  hundreds  of  millions  of 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  35 

uncivilized  people.  It  is  evident  that  Imperialism  is 
dying  Capitalism,  preparatory  to  Socialism;  that  mo- 
nopoly, which  is  an  outgrowth  of  Capitalism,  is  al- 
ready the  agony  of  Capitalism,  the  beginning  of  the 
transition  to  Socialism.  The  tremendous  socialization 
of  labor,  through  Imperialism  (which  the  bourgeois 
economic  apologists  call  'the  interlocking  process') 
has  precisely  the  same  significance.  .  .  .  On  the  one 
hand,  the  tendency  of  the  bourgeoisie  and  of  the  op- 
portunists is  to  transform  the  richest  of  the  privileged 
nations  into  'permanent'  parasites  on  the  body  of 
backward  humanity,  to  'rest  on  the  laurels'  of  the 
exploitation  of  Negroes,  East  Indians,  etc.,  holding 
them  in  subjection  by  using  the  magnificent  destruc- 
tive powers  of  the  newest  military  technique.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  tendency  of  the  masses,  more  op- 
pressed than  ever,  and  burdened  with  all  the  torments 
of  imperialistic  wars,  to  cast  off  this  yoke  and  over- 
throw the  bourgeoisie.  In  the  conflict  between  these 
two  tendencies,  the  history  of  the  workers'  movement 
must  really  begin  to  move."8 

The  more  Imperialism  expresses  itself  as  stagnant 

8.  N.  Lenin,  "Imperialism  and  the  Socialist  Schism,"  loc.  cit.  Another  pas- 
sage from  this  article  will  prove  instructive:  "Our  definition  of  Imperialism  puts  us 
in  opposition  to  Karl  Kautsky,  who  refuses  to  accept  Imperialism  as  'a  phase  of 
Capitalism,'  and  defines  Imperialism  as  the  policy  'favored  by'  finance-capital,  as 
the  tendency  of  the  'industrial'  countries  to  annex  'agrarian'  countries.  This  definition 
of  Kautsky's  is  theoretically  all  wrong.  The  peculiarity  of  Imperialism  is  the 
hegemony,  precisely  not  of  industrial,  but  of  financial  capital,  the  tendency  to 
annex,  not  agrarian,  but  any  countries  at  all.  Kautsky  tears  the  policy  of  Imperial 
ism  from  its  economy,  severs  monopolism  in  economy  from  monopolism  in  policy 
in  order  to  pave  the  way  for  his  base  bourgeois  reformism  of  'disarmament,'  'ultra 
Imperialism,'  and  other  follies.  This  theoretical  misrepresentation  is  completely  cal 
culatod  to  obliterate  the  profound  contradictions  of  Imperialism,  and  thus  to  pre 
pare  the  theory  of  'unity'  with  the  apologists  of  Imperialism,  the  outright  social 
patriots  and  opportunists." 


36  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

Capitalism,  the  more  violent  will  become  the  strug- 
gles of  Capitalism  to  avert  its  collapse.  But  a  sys- 
tem that  must  resort  to  the  methods  of  Imperialism 
is  a  system  that  inevitably  strangles  itself  in  its  own 
contradictions.  The  contradictions  of  Imperialism 
are  the  contradictions  of  Capitalism,  multiplied  and 
aggravated  by  the  corroding  stagnation  of  an  economy 
that  historically  has  persisted  beyond  its  necessity. 

A  social  system  is  often  deceptive  in  its  strength. 
The  war,  apparently,  marks  a  strengthening  of  Capi- 
talism, a  new  expression  of  the  omnipotence  of  Capi- 
talism: the  state  and  Capitalism  are  supreme,  con- 
trol all  things  with  iron  despotism.  And  yet,  his- 
torically, the  war  is  an  expression  of  the  weakness 
of  Capitalism,  of  its  stagnant  condition,  of  the  fact 
that  the  situation  of  Capitalism  is  so  desperate  as  to 
invoke  the  use  of  the  most  desperate,  dangerous  means 
to  preserve  itself.  Imperialism,  equally,  marks  an 
apparent  renewal  of  the  might  of  Capitalism,  a  new 
means  for  the  prolongation  of  its  supremacy.  These 
are  facts;  but  it  is  a  form  of  renewal  and  prolongation 
worse  than  the  disease;  that  imply  new  and  more 
desperate  struggles,  acuter  antagonisms,  and  a  multi- 
plication of  the  factors  that  produce  Imperialism. 
A  still  more  decrepit  Capitalism,  an  unavoidable  lim- 
iting of  the  opportunity  for  its  preservation, — these 
are  the  inevitable  consequences  of  the  tendency  of 
Imperialism. 

Imperialism  is  the  final  stage  of  Capitalism:  the 


IMPERIALISM  AND  CAPITALISM  37 

two  are  interwoven,  persist  or  collapse  as  one.  The 
alternative  is  either  the  collapse  of  all  civilization,  or 
the  coming  of  Socialism. 


Ill 


THE  epoch  of  Imperialism  expresses  a  readjust- 
ment in  the  concentration  of  capital  and  industry,  and 
the  radical  alteration  of  class  relations  and  the  form 
of  expression  of  class  interests. 

The  accumulation  of  capital  produces  the  concen- 
tration of  industry,  and  the  concentration  of  industry 
accelerates  the  accumulation  of  capital.  The  develop- 
ment of  technology  requires  larger  and  larger  indus- 
trial units;  the  battle  of  competition,  waged  through 
the  cheapening  of  commodities,  places  the  small  pro- 
ducer at  a  disadvantage  and  encourages  concentrated 
industrial  enterprises.  A  simple  industry  becomes 
complex:  the  steel  industry  not  only  manufactures 
steel,  but  by-products,  and  acquires  mines  and  rail- 
ways. In  this  process  of  concentration,  the  smaller 
capitalists  are  either  driven  to  the  wall,  compelled  to 
unite  their  capitals,  or  forced  into  new  lines  of  indus- 
trial endeavor,  where  the  development  of  technology 
and  the  battle  of  competition  again  produce  con- 
centration. The  consequences  of  this  activity  are  the 

38 


CLASS  DIVISIONS  UNDER  IMPERIALISM       39 

decay  of  the  industrial  middle  class  and  a  develop- 
ment toward  monoply. 

The  process  of  concentration  of  industry  is  accom- 
panied by  the  centralization  of  capital.  Normally,  the 
centralization  of  capital  is  a  consequence  of  concen- 
tration of  industry;  actually,  it  may  be  and  often  is  its 
cause.  Centralization1  is  financial,  the  unity  of  many 
small  or  large  capitals  used  co-operatively  and  not 
competitively.  Centralization  may  precede  concen- 
tration of  industry,  accelerate  concentration,  and 
plays  an  important  part  in  capitalist  development. 
"The  world  would  still  be  without  railroads  if  it  had 
been  obliged  to  wait  until  accumulation  should  have 
enabled  a  few  individual  capitalists  to  undertake  the 
construction  of  a  railroad.  Centralization,  on  the 
other  hand,  accomplished  this  by  a  turn  of  the  hand 
through  stock  companies."2  Centralization  strips  cap- 
ital of  the  fetters  of  its  isolation  and  unites  it  into  a 
formidable  instrument  of  development  and  exploita- 
tation,  reproducing  many-fold  the  value  of  the  totality 
of  its  individual  components;  through  this  unity,  cen- 
tralization makes  possible  enterprises  before  which 
the  individual  capitals  would  shrink  in  terror  or  im- 
potence; it  accelerates  economic  expansion,  breaks 
new  ground,  and  paves  the  way  for  systematic,  inten- 
sive exploitation  and  development.  Centralization 

1.  The  word    "centralization"    throughout   this    discussion    it    used    to   indicate   a 
financial    category,    the    word    "concentration"    an    industrial    category,    although    in 
practice   the    two   are   not   rigidly   separable. 

2.  Karl   Marx,    Capital,    Vol.    1,    Chapter   XXV,    Section    2. 


40  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

in  the  United  States  built  great  railway  systems,  the 
tentacles  of  which,  so  to  say,  smothered  the  barbaric 
isolation  and  virility  of  the  great  West,  opening  a  new 
continent  to  the  civilizing  beneficence  of  capitalist 
industry,  profit  and  religion.  Centralization  forged 
the  tools  which  tapped  the  great  natural  resources, 
drawing  the  whole  of  our  continent  into  the  circle  of 
capitalist  exploitation;  it  gave  impetus  to  new  indus- 
tries and  provided  the  means  with  which  to  build  up 
new  industries.  If  this  process  was  accompanied  by 
concentration  of  industry  and  economic  efficiency,  that 
was  partial  and  incidental — technically  inevitable, 
but  subjectively  incidental. 

In  the  capitalist  order  of  things,  accordingly,  cen- 
tralization performed  a  mighty  work.  Speculative 
centralization  accomplished  with  almost  lightning 
rapidly  what  planful,  systematic  effort  would  have 
by  now  barely  started.  The  process  of  speculative 
centralization,  however,  becomes  a  fetter  upon  the 
systematic,  co-ordinated  concentration  of  industry; 
produces  a  large  amount  of  waste,  makes  dominantly 
the  speculative  capitalist  instead  of  the  industrial  cap- 
italist the  arbiter  of  industry,  and  converts  industry 
into  an  expression  of  finance  instead  of  finance  into 
an  expression  of  industry.  Necessary  at  an  earlier 
epoch,  centralization  becomes  a  fetter  upon  the  indus- 
trial process,  and  industry  re-adjusts  itself,  standard- 
izes and  specializes  itself  in  accord  with  the  integra- 
tion of  production.  The  extensive  or  expansive  ex- 


CLASS  DIVISIONS  UNDER  IMPERIALISM       41 

ploitation  of  the  epoch  of  centralization  is  succeeded 
by  re-adjustment  and  intensive  development.  The 
ultimate  aim  of  centralization  is  monopoly,  and  for  a 
time  monopoly  prevails.  But  while  competition  pro- 
duces monopoly,  monopoly  produces  competition  on  a 
higher  plane  and  within  narrower  limits,  between 
million-capitals.  However,  the  attempt  at  the  monop- 
olistic management  of  industry  is  seen  as  unwieldy, 
inefficient,  wasteful,  and  as  defeating  its  own  pur- 
pose. There  is  a  revolt3  at  the  attempt  of  monopolistic 
finance  to  direct  the  technic  of  industry.  Monopol- 
istic industry  does  not  succeed  in  maintaining  its 
ascendancy,  but  monopolistic  finance  becomes  domi- 
nant. Financial  capital  does  not  direct  the  technic  of 
industry,  but  it  controls  the  industrial  forces. 

The  attempt  at  indiscriminate  monopoly,  moreover, 
acts  as  a  fetter  upon  the  concentration  and  integration 
of  industry.  Competition  cannot  be  wiped  out  com- 
pletely through  struggle  and  rivalry;  this  may  be  ac- 
complished through  co-operation.  Under  these  condi- 
tions, the  typical  industry  of  concentrated  capital  be- 

3.  Certain  developments  in  railway  history  may  illustrate  this  fact.  The  New 
Haven  transportation  system,  under  the  control  of  President  Mellon,  adopted  the 
policy  of  monopolizing  New  England's  transportation  system.  Mellon  sacrificed  and 
lowered  dividends  and  efficiency,  acquired  control  of  competing  water  lines,  bought 
up  trolley  systems,  grasped  railroad  lines  far  beyond  the  New  Haven's  field  of 
operations,  and  paid  exorbitant  prices  for  virtually  useless  properties,  all  to  develop 
a  monopoly;  a  process  that,  as  one  financial  paper  put  it,  "can  only  be  justified 
in  the  event  of  monopoly  being  established  to  an  extent  that  will  permit  monopolistic 
rates  to  be  charged."  In  1913  the  Mellen  regime  was  overthrown,  without  a  murmur 
from  its  dominating  influence,  the  Morgan  financial  empire.  E.  H.  Harriman  tried  in 
a  measure  the  same  process,  and  after  his  death  the  railway  systems  he  had  united 
split  apart.  But  the  animating  instinct  of  these  men  was  right:  the  railway  systems 
had  to  be  integrated;  it  could  not,  however,  be  accomplished  through  private 
initiative  alone,  but  it  is  now  being  accomplished  through  the  medium  of 
state  control,  which,  by  guaranteeing  dividends,  may  eliminate  wasteful  competition 
and  manage  the  railways  as  an  integral  system,  in  accord  with  industrial  requirements. 


42  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

comes  the  steel  industry,  as  in  the  United  States. 

The  Steel  Trust  did  not  attempt  to  crush  all  its 
rivals  and  secure  a  complete  monopoly.  This  trust 
and  the  independents  maintain  friendly  relations  and 
co-operate,  although,  of  course,  the  trust  dominates, 
and  all  are  still  further  dominated  by  finance-capital. 
The  policy  becomes  general.  It  becomes  general  be- 
cause of  the  compulsion  of  industrial  necessity;  and 
it  becomes  general,  moreover,  because  the  develop- 
ment of  the  home  market  no  longer  allows  indiscrim- 
inate competition,  and  because  the  unity  of  capitalist 
interests  is  necessary  in  the  struggles  of  Imperialism 
for  investment  markets  and  new  spheres  of  develop- 
ment. The  accumulation  of  capital  has  up  to  this 
point  proceeded,  in  a  measure,  through  the  expropria- 
tion of  one  capitalist  by  another  within  the  nation; 
it  now  becomes  dominantly  a  process  of  one  national 
group  of  capitalists  expropriating  a  rival  group 
through  control  of  industrial  development  in  unde- 
veloped countries,  and  by  successful  competition  in 
the  other  markets  of  the  world.  The  unity  of  a  na- 
tional Capitalism  is  indispensable  under  these  con- 
ditions. 

Industrial  concentration  does  not  cease  at  this 
point;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  given  a  new  impetus,  as- 
sumes a  new  form  and  becomes  more  systematic  and 
co-ordinated,  more  strictly  industrial  and  technologi- 
cal in  character.  The  energy  of  industry  is  freed  to 
specialize  and  standardize  its  process  and  production, 


CLASS  DIVISIONS  UNDER  IMPERIALISM       43 

increasing  output  and  decreasing  costs.  It  is  precisely 
this  specialization  and  standardization  that  make 
American  Capitalism  a  most  successful  competitor  in 
the  markets  of  the  world.  Moreover,  through  the  in- 
tegrating activity  of  State  Capitalism,  industry  ac- 
quires a  new  and  more  complete  form  of  concentra- 
tion, the  control  of  the  state  imposing  adaptation  and 
unity,  and  regulating  the  relations  of  industry  to  in- 
dustry. The  control  of  the  state  means  the  climax  of 
industrial  concentration,  precisely  as  State  Capitalism 
and  Imperialism  mean  the  climax  of  Capitalism  it- 
self. This  development  proceeds  under  the  sway  of 
finance-capital:  the  whole  of  industry  comes  under 
the  domination  of  monopolistic  finance,  and  subservi- 
ent to  its  policy, — including  the  state  itself,  openly 
and  unashamed.  The  ventures  of  Imperialism  are 
carried  on  through  finance-capital;  these  ventures 
are  indispensable  to  the  life  of  capitalist  industry  at 
the  climax  of  its  development;  and  finance-capital, 
accordingly,  becomes  the  dictator  of  the  industrial 
forces  of  a  nation. 

The  monopoly  and  domination  of  finance-capital 
are  not  disputed,  since  the  export  of  capital  is  now 
the  nerve-center  of  capitalist  production  and  expan- 
sion. The  industrial  capitalist  becomes  subservient  to 
the  financial  capitalist  because  exports  are  necessary 
to  him,  and  under  the  conditions  of  trade  today  the 
export  of  products  must  be  financed  by  the  export  of 
capital.  James  A.  Farrell,  president  of  the  United 


44  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

States  Steel  Corporation,  recently  emphasized  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  export  of  capital,  of  foreign  investments, 
as  "a  commercial  preparedness  measure,"  as  the 
means  of  increasing  trade  and  exports  by  financing  the 
needs  of  the  growing  countries  "which  are  America's 
best  customers."  Great  Britain's  $20,000,000,000  of 
foreign  investments,  according  to  Farrell,  "retain  and 
strengthen  its  hold  on  the  neutral  markets  of  the 
world."  Through  the  development  of  technology  and 
the  increased  productivity  of  labor,  the  mass  of  sur- 
plus products  steadily  accumulates;  the  industrial 
capitalist  must  dispose  of  these  products  through  ex- 
port trade;  the  demand  for  these  products  must  be 
stimulated  through  the  development  of  the  internal 
markets  of  undeveloped  countries,  which  is  accom- 
plished through  investments  and  the  export  of  means 
of  production;  and,  accordingly,  the  export  of  prod- 
ucts becomes  in  large  measure  dependent  upon  the 
export  of  capital.  This  being  the  situation,  capitalist 
industry  rallies  to  Imperialism  as  necessary  to  its 
existence,  prosperity  and  expansion. 

The  investments  which  are  the  animating  factor  of 
Imperialism  are,  as  stated  previously,  an  industrial  as 
much  as  a  financial  transaction.  The  capital  invested 
in  an  undeveloped  country  is  used  to  build  railways, 
factories,  docks,  irrigation  systems,  to  exploit  mines, 
etc. ;  all  this  requires  steel,  machinery  and  other  prod- 
ucts, including  skilled  labor;  and  when  American 
finance-capital,  say,  invests  in  Mexico  to  build  rail- 


CLASS  DIVISIONS  UNDER  IMPERIALISM       45 

ways,  it  is  tacitly  or  openly  agreed  that  the  bulk  of 
the  necessary  materials  shall  be  purchased  in  the 
United  States.  This  is  the  rule  in  all  such  enterprises. 
There  is  here  a  double  profit, — a  profit  on  the  invest- 
ment, directly,  which  goes  to  finance-capital;  and  a 
profit  on  the  export  of  materials,  indirectly,  which 
goes  to  the  industrial  capitalist.  This  is  a  circumstance 
which  converts  Imperialism,  essentially  a  mechanism 
of  finance-capital,  into  the  concern  of  all  capitalist 
groups,  the  export  of  capital  being  the  purveyor,  stab- 
ilizer and  guarantor  of  profit  generally;4  and  this  re- 
sults in  a  unity  of  capitalist  interests  that  is  a  dis- 
tinguishing feature  of  the  era  of  Imperialism.  The 
domination  of  finance-capital  is  assured  because  it 
becomes  the  typical  expression  of  Capitalism. 

In  this  process,  the   industrial  middle-class,  the 

4.  The  organization  of  the  American  International  Corporation  was  the  sign 
and  symbol  of  awakening  to  the  opportunity  of  seizing  world  power,  backed  up  by 
a  vigorous  propaganda  for  mightier  armaments.  This  International  Corporation 
represents  the  great  interests  of  finance-capital,  and  of  such  powerful  economic  units 
as  the  steel  industry.  Its  purpose  is  to  seek  out  investment  markets,  exploit  and 
control  them.  It  is  a  definite  expression  of  the  new  era  in  American  trade — an  era 
of  systematic  export  of  products  organized  by  the  export  of  capital.  Its  capitalization 
of  $50,000,000  is  purely  nominal,  a  mere  bagatelle  in  comparison  with  the  millons 
upon  millons  controlled  by  its  sponsors.  It  is  around  the  activity  of  this  corpo- 
ration, in  China,  in  Chile,  anywhere  an  opportunity  offers,  that  American  Imperialism 
is  organizng  itself.  .  .  .  What  are  the  economic  facts  .  .  .  that  lie  at  the 
roots  of  our  developing  Imperialism?  The  credit  balance  of  American  foreign 
trade  from  the  outbreak  of  the  war  to  January  31,  1917,  represents  a  huge  total 
of  $5,574,000,000.  .  .  .  The  statistics  are  not  significant  because  of  what  they 
express  in  foreign  trade  alone.  Trade  in  itself  is  not  a  cause  of  belligerency  between 
nations  today.  .  .  .  The  outstanding  fact  is  that  America,  from  a  debtor  nation, 
/nix  become  a  credtor  nation.  Two  years  ago  American  Capitalism  owed  the  world 
more  than  two  billion  dollars;  today  the  world  owes  America  nearly  three  billion 
dollars.  Where  this  country  previously  imported  masses  of  capital,  today  it  is  exporting 
capital,  and  is  developing  the  power  to  export  it  in  still  larger  masses.  The  loans 
to  the  belligerent  governments,  paying  good  interest,  represent  a  financial  reserve 
for  the  future.  And  these  loans  are  steadily  increasing — at  present  they  amount 
to  more  than  $2,500,000,000.  .  .  .  The  export  of  American  capital  to  Mexico, 
and  to  Central  and  South  America  generally,  has  been  the  factor  in  the  development 
of  Imperialism  in  this  country,  with  its  menace  to  peace  and  freedom  at  home  and 
abroad.  How  much  more  menacing  will  this  Imperialism  become  when  the  export 
of  capital  assumes  larger  dimensions! — Louis  C.  Fraina,  "The  War  and  America,"  in 
Tie  Class  Struggle,  May-June,  1917. 


46  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

small  and  middle-sized  producer,  disappears  as  an 
independent  factor.  Turned  into  an  anachronism 
through  the  concentration  of  industry,  the  small  pro- 
ducer fights  desperately  against  the  process;  but  con- 
centration becomes  steadily  ascendant.  The  indus- 
trial middle  class  may  use  its  electoral  strength,  in 
conjunction  with  workers  whom  it  has  cajoled,  to 
strike  at  concentrated  industry  by  means  of  legislative 
action.  But,  gradually,  the  fight  ends.  It  ends  not 
only  because  concentrated  capital  is  supreme,  but 
because  the  new  era  of  Imperialism  cannot  tolerate 
this  division  of  energy  within  the  capitalist  class.  A 
compromise  is  struck — the  remnants  of  the  industrial 
middle  class,  together  with  the  producers  in  between 
the  middle  class  and  big  industry,  are  allowed  to  exist 
and  to  participate  in  the  profits  of  Imperialism,  in 
return  for  which  this  class  ceases  its  struggles  for  in- 
dependence. It  straggles  along  dependent  upon 
finance-capital,  its  miserable  petty  bourgeois  soul 
bought  and  paid  for  by  the  master.  And  under  these 
conditions,  the  remnants  of  the  industrial  petite 
bourgeoise  become  a  repulsively  reactionary  factor, 
more  imperialistic  than  imperialistic  finance  itself, 
where  formerly  pluming  itself  in  the  colors  of  free- 
dom, democracy,  and  even  revolution!  This  com- 
promise is  equally  struck  between  trust  and  indepen- 
dent competitors — concerns  of  million-capital,  which 
are  not  part  of  the  industrial  middle  class,  but  which 
previously  acted  against  big  capital  through  competi- 


CLASS  DIVISIONS  UNDER  IMPERIALISM       47 

tion;  a  situation,  moreover,  which  is  in  itself  partly 
determined  by  the  circumstance  that  there  are  certain 
historical  limits  to  industrial  concentration  and  the 
expropriation  of  one  capitalist  by  another  under  the 
technological,  social  and  political  conditions  of  Capi- 
talism. Harmony,  as  much  as  is  possible  in  a  sys- 
tem where  dog  eats  dog,  prevails,  and  all  seek  recom- 
pense for  the  concessions  of  compromise  in  the  fabu- 
lous profits  of  Imperialism. 

But  now  a  factor  emerges  of  prime  social  import- 
ance— the  creation  of  a  new  middle  class.  The  dif- 
ferences between  the  old  and  the  new  middle  class 
may  be  summarized, — the  old  was  industrial,  an  own- 
ing class,  the  new  is  social,  an  income  class;  the  old 
was  independent,  the  new  dependent;  the  old  was 
determined  by  the  conditions  of  its  existence  in  a 
struggle  against  the  concentration  of  industry,  the  new 
is  the  product  of  concentrated  industry  and  its  obedi- 
ent vassal.  The  upper  layer  of  this  new  middle  class 
consists  of  individuals  owning  shares  in  concentrated 
industry.  It  is  not  an  industrial  factor,  having  been 
expropriated  from  direct  control  of  industry,  and  its 
financial  interests  in  trusts  and  corporations  are  not  of 
a  character  to  insure  domination.  The  lower  layer 
consists  of  managers,  superintendents,  engineers, 
technicians,  and  professional  men  of  specialized 
training  for  industrial  pursuits.  These  various  ele- 
ments are  wholly  dependent  upon  concentrated  cap- 
ital and  its  imperialistic  manifestations, — the  upper 


48  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

layer,  because  of  its  dividends;  the  lower,  because  it 
occupies  a  privileged  status  in  industry,  and  because 
a  feature  of  Imperialism  is  the  export  of  technical 
skill  to  undeveloped  countries  to  manage  and  super- 
intend the  industries  created  there  by  the  investment 
of  capital.  This  new  middle  class  is  thoroughly  re- 
actionary, although  it  develops  a  peculiar  type  of 
"liberal  ideas." 

An  adjunct  of  this  new  middle  class,  and  trying 
to  force  itself  within  its  ranks,  is  a  certain  category  of 
ordinary  skilled  labor.  In  the  development  of  the 
internal  market  of  an  undeveloped  country,  skilled 
labor  is  necessary,  and  this  skilled  labor,  clearly, 
cannot  be  secured  in  the  country  being  developed. 
There  occurs,  accordingly,  the  export  of  a  mass  of 
skilled  workers — clerks,  stenographers,  mechanics, 
etc. — all  of  whom  are  dependent  directly  upon  Im- 
perialism and  become  its  prophets  in  more  or  less 
conscious  degree. 

The  character  of  strength  and  danger  inherent  in 
Imperialism  flows  from  precisely  this  circumstance, 
that  it  seduces  hitherto  liberal  and  oppositional  ele- 
ments, organizes  them  into  the  social  and  psychologi- 
cal army  of  Imperialism.  By  means  of  innumerable 
visible  and  invisible  threads  of  interest  and  depend- 
ency, finance-capital  bends  to  its  will  and  purpose  the 
whole  of  capitalist  society.  It  reigns  supreme.  Im- 
perialism accomplishes  that  which  never  prevailed 
hitherto,  the  complete  domination  of  capitalist  autoc- 


CLASS  DIVISIONS  UNDER  IMPERIALISM       49 

racy  in  its  most  revolting  form;  and  it  manages,  more- 
over, at  least  temporarily,  to  scatter  the  opposition  to 
chaff, — except  the  potential  opposition  of  the  revolu- 
tionary industrial  proletariat. 

Imperialism  accomplishes  another  determining 
thing:  it  brings  the  "labor  movement"  into  its  service. 
At  this  stage,  Imperialism  becomes  specially  inter- 
ested in  the  psychology  and  action  of  the  working 
class.  In  the  struggles  of  Imperialism,  a  national 
Capitalism  must  present  a  united  front.  The  unity  of 
capitalist  interests  becomes  imperative,  as  any  mate- 
rial division  of  energy  through  unbridled  rivalry  of 
interests  weakens  the  economic,  political  and  military 
power  of  the  nation.  The  unity  of  the  various  layers 
of  the  capitalist  class  has  been  secured  partly  through 
compromise,  largely  through  their  subordination  to 
and  dependence  upon  monopolistic  finance-capital. 
But  this  unity  is  incomplete  unless  it  includes  the 
workers.  Industrial  regularity  and  efficiency  are  indis- 
pensable in  the  international  competition  of  Imperial- 
ism, equally  during  peace  and  war,  and  a  discontented 
class  of  workers  becomes  exceedingly  unpleasant  and 
perhaps  dangerous.  Monopolistic  finance-capital  se- 
cures support  for  its  imperialistic  adventures  among 
the  other  layers  of  the  capitalist  class  by  a  "distribu- 
tion" of  the  profits  of  Imperialism;  and  this  policy  is 
extended  to  groups  of  skilled  labor,  their  support  be- 
ing secured  by  means  of  higher  wages,  steady  employ- 
ment, better  hours  and  conditions  of  work  generally, 


50  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

and  legislative  measures  conferring  status  upon 
skilled  labor.  The  tendency  is  to  create  a  homogeneity 
of  interests,  which  is  largely,  if  temporarily,  success- 
ful. Skilled  labor,  sensing  its  importance  and  oppor- 
tunity, makes  the  attempt  through  its  unions  to  secure 
even  larger  concessions,  and  establish  for  itself  a 
place  in  the  governing  system  of  the  nation.  It  re- 
jects the  general  class  struggle  against  Capitalism,  and 
acts  as  a  caste  the  psychology  and  action  of  which  are 
determined  by  the  aspiration  to  absorb  itself  in  the 
ruling  system  of  things.  The  general  process  creates 
a  reactionary  mass  whose  interests  are  promoted  by 
the  more  intense  exploitation  of  the  proletariat  of 
average,  unskilled  labor,  the  overwhelming  mass  of 
the  workers,  and  by  imperialistic  adventures. 

The  governmental  form  of  expression  of  this  devel- 
opment is  State  Capitalism.5  The  unity  of  class  and 
group  interests  must  be  and  is  maintained  and  con- 
served by  the  authority  of  the  state.  The  end  of  eco- 
nomic individualism  is  symbolized  by  governmental 
control  of  industry  and  conditions  of  labor;  the  state, 
moreover,  acts  directly  to  intensify  the  concentration 


upon    me   wnoie   01    muusiry   ana   re-organize   tnrougn    stale    uapi 
forces  of  a  nation.     The  change  is  tremendous  and   fundamental. 


CLASS  DIVISIONS  UNDER  IMPERIALISM       51 

of  industry  and  "regulate"  the  revolts  of  labor. 

The  industrial  units  in  the  nation  under  State  Cap- 
italism are  no  longer  allowed  to  proceed  without  being 
co-ordinated  to  the  general  process  of  national  indus- 
try and  its  international  interests.  Representative  in- 
stitutions become  more  and  more  incapable  of  coping 
with  the  new  and  vast  industrial  requirements ;  parlia- 
mentary government  virtually  breaks  down;  and  gov- 
ernmental power  becomes  centralized  in  the  control 
of  administrative  autocrats.  The  state  becomes  an 
actual  factor  in  industry  through  control,  regulation 
and  direction.  This  represents,  moreover,  a  new  form 
of  State  Capitalism.  The  older  and  the  newer  State 
Capitalism  differ  in  this,  that  while  the  two  may  merge 
into  each  other,  the  first  is  pre-imperialistic  and  con- 
sists simply  in  government  ownership  of  certain  in- 
dustries, while  the  newer  State  Capitalism  is  imperial- 
istic, may  not  actually  own  any  industry,  but  exercises 
drastic  and  despotic  control  over  the  general  indus- 
trial process. 

The  older  State  Capitalism  was  an  expression  of 
competitive  Capitalism,  an  expression  largely  of  a 
weakening  industrial  middle  class  that  conceived  gov- 
ernment ownership  as  a  means  of  destroying  the  trusts 
and  certain  of  its  industrial  oppressors;  while  imper- 
ialistic State  Capitalism  is  essentially  an  expression 
of  industrial  collectivism,  finance-capital  and  Imper- 
ialism,— in  short,  of  Capitalism  at  the  climax  of  its 
development.  It  is  not  necessary,  it  is  even  undesir- 


52  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

able,  that  imperialistic  State  Capitalism  should  have 
any  actual  government  ownership  of  industry;  it  is 
sufficient  that  it  co-ordinate,  concentrate  and  control 
the  process  of  industry,  and  express  the  unity  of  cap- 
italist interests,  compelling  this  unity  by  state  force  if 
necessary.  Imperialism  and  State  Capitalism,6  ac- 
cordingly, represent  a  new  epoch  in  Capitalism,  and 
a  radical  alteration  in  the  relations  of  classes  and  in 
the  form  of  expression  of  their  class  interests. 

A  vital  fact  of  State  Capitalism  is  that  skilled  labor 
becomes  a  part  of  the  governing  system.  The  unions 
which  comprise  the  aristocracy  of  labor  gradually 
acquire  an  influence  in  State  Capitalism,  a  concession 
that  is  offered  them  as  a  bribe,  and  which  they  accept, 

6.  The  State  Capitalism  of  Germany  is  a  merging  of  the  old  and  new,  and  ig 
consequently  not  typical  of  imperialistic  State  Capitalism,  being  burdened  with  many 
of  the  evils  of  government  ownership  and  operation.  The  countries  adopting  State 
Capitalism  are  aware  of  these  evils,  and  try  to  avoid  them.  At  a  meeting  of  the 
Liverpool  Section  of  the  British  Chemical  Society,  reported  in  The  Journal  of  the 
Society  of  Chemical  Industry,  November  15,  1917,  Mr.  A.  T.  Smith  lamented  the  "in- 
vasion of  the  official"  incident  to  rigid  State  Capitalism:  "  .  .  .  .  time  is  largely 
occupied  in  attempting  to  comply  with  the  wishes  of  these  various  new  departments. 
It  may  be  that  this  condition  of  affairs  is  inseparable  from  the  control  of  manufac- 
turers by  a  central  department  or  departments  in  London,  but  I  venture  to  suggest 
that  rites  and  ordinances  have  been  multiplied  to  an  unnecessary  degree.  .  .  . 
Centralization  is  all  very  well  in  its  way,  but  I  venture  to  suggest  that  too  much 
centralization  in  a  trade  like  ours  is  worse  than  useless."  In  the  discussion,  a 
speaker  emphasized  the  problem,  and  declared  it  was  interesting  to  read  in  a 
report  of  the  German  Iron  and  Steel  Institute  a  condemnation  of  the  methods  of 
"organization"  in  the  industry — the  writer  complaining  of  a  "superabundance  of 
government  departments."  The  United  States  has  not  had  the  older  forms  of  State 
Capitalism,  consequently  its  imperialistic  State  Capitalism  avoids  its  evils — it 
establishes  government  control  of  industry,  but  not  operation  or  ownership.  The 
state  controls,  concentrates  and  co-ordinates,  but  operation  remains  with  private 
capitalist  initiative.  The  New  York  Tribune,  in  its  issue  of  December  28,  1917, 
editorializing  on  the  government's  assumption  of  railroad  control,  aptly  posed  the 
problem:  "If  the  government  will  stop  there  [state  control]  and  leave  the  operation 
of  the  railroads  in  the  hands  of  operating  men,  the  effectiveness  of  the  transportation 
machine  will  be  increased.  If,  having  taken  control  of  the  railroads  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  owners,  it  will  hand  them  back  to  the  operating  people  and  say, 
'There  they  are;  take  them  and  run  them  as  one  system,  without  thought  of  dividends 
and  interest  payments,  using  every  mile  of  track  and  locomotive  in  common,  only 
to  get  the  freight  moved" — if  it  will  say  that,  the  thing  is  done.  The  railroads  will 
have  been  'unified.'  That  is  essential."  Imperialistic  State  Capitalism  bends  the 
state  directly  to  its  purposes;  state  control  of  industry  is  indirectly  control  of  the 
state  by  industry. 


CLASS  DIVISIONS  UNDER  IMPERIALISM       53 

at  least  temporarily,  uniting  their  forces  with  Imper- 
ialism. Skilled  labor  having  been  seduced,  the  pro- 
letariat of  average,  unskilled  labor  becomes  the  revo- 
lutionary force.  The  covert  and  overt  clash  between 
skilled  and  unskilled  labor,  which  even  hitherto  has 
been  a  prime  factor,  now  assumes  a  more  definite  and 
violent  aspect.  The  two  groups  engage  in  an  open, 
bitter  struggle,  as  in  order  to  secure  and  retain  its 
privileges  skilled  labor  completely  abandons  and  be- 
trays the  unskilled;  indeed,  it  is  part  of  the  tacit  agree- 
ment implied  in  Laborism  becoming  a  part  of  State 
Capitalism  that  it  shall  use  its  influence  to  maintain 
unskilled  labor  in  subjection.  During  a  war  this  func- 
tion of  Laborism  becomes  particularly  necessary.  In 
January,  1918,  while  the  workers  were  engaging  in 
revolutionary  strikes  and  demonstrations  in  Germany, 
the  unions  of  skilled  labor  acted  in  favor  of  the  gov- 
ernment. The  great  western  strikes  in  this  country,  in 
the  spring  and  summer  of  1917,  were  an  expression  of 
unskilled  labor,  a  spontaneous  revolt  acting  through 
mass  action  equally  against  the  employers  and  the 
"regular"  unions.  The  bureaucracy  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  acted  against  these  strikes  and 
generally  betrayed  them.  The  strikes  coalesced 
around  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,  and  the 
A.  F.  of  L.  actively  engaged  in  the  fight  against  the 
I.  W.  W. 

"Accumulation  of  capital,"  says  Marx,  "is  increase 
of  the  proletariat."    Imperialism  increases  the  prole- 


54  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

tariat  by  bringing  new  regions  and  its  human  raw  ma- 
terial within  the  circle  of  capitalist  exploitation.  This 
new  proletariat,  naturally,  is  expropriated  and  be- 
comes the  starting  point  of  a  new  capitalist  accumu- 
lation; it  is,  moreover,  a  proletariat  of  average,  un- 
skilled labor,  the  required  skilled  labor  being  largely, 
if  not  exclusively,  imported.  There  occurs  a  repetition 
of  the  struggle  between  skilled  and  unskilled,  with 
this  difference,  that  the  struggle  is  at  the  same  time 
intensified  and  obscured  by  national  and  racial  preju- 
dice. The  conditions  of  this  newly-created  proletariat 
are  as  abominable  as  in  the  initial  period  of  the  indus- 
trial revolution  in  England.  Children  are  mercilessly 
driven  and  flogged  if  they  lag;  men  and  women  are 
worked  from  14  to  20  hours  a  day,  generally  seven 
days  a  week;  wages  are  frightfully  low;  fraud  is  gen- 
eral, and  when  the  workers  rebel  they  usually  demand 
the  day's  wage  in  advance;  and  a  sort  of  peonage  is 
imposed  that  is  vile  and  degrading.  The  untutored 
mind  of  these  people  must  indeed  consider  the  bless- 
ings of  civilization  as  peculiar!  The  profits  on  in- 
vestments are,  naturally,  very  high.  Capital  recoups 
itself  for  the  concessions  made  to  skilled  labor  by  an 
intensified  national  and  international  exploitation  of 
the  unskilled.  This  creates  a  class  of  average  labor 
that  is  truly  international  in  its  misery  and  exploita- 
tion, and  which  develops  the  material  conditions  and 
ideology  for  international  revolution. 

Upon  the  misery   and  exploitation   of  unskilled 


CLASS  DIVISIONS  UNDER  IMPERIALISM       55 

labor,  the  overwhelming  mass  of  the  industrial  pro- 
letariat, the  new  bloc  of  general  reactionary  interests 
thrives  and  becomes  prosperous.  But  unskilled  labor 
awakens  to  a  consciousness  of  its  misery  and  its 
strength.  The  revolts  of  the  unskilled  become  more 
numerous  and  more  general.  It  becomes  the  immedi- 
ate and  potential  revolutionary  force  against  Capital- 
ism, and  through  its  action  the  bloc  of  reactionary 
interests  is  broken.  It  is  through  the  interests  and 
action  of  the  proletariat  of  average,  unskilled  labor, 
the  dominant  form  of  labor  in  modern  industry,  that 
the  Social  Revolution  will  come. 


IV 
THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY 

THE  conditions  of  Imperialism  and  State  Capital- 
ism generate  a  reactionary  trend,  nationally  and  inter- 
nationally. The  reactionary  and  brutalizing  charac- 
ter of  Imperialism  does  not  consist  simply  in  the  fact 
that  it  produces  war  and  crushes  the  independence  of 
peoples.  Imperialism  strikes  equally  at  independ- 
ence and  democracy  within  the  nation,  at  the  paltry 
democracy  of  Capitalism:  it  means  the  end  of  the  era 
of  bourgeois  democracy.1 

The  democracy  of  the  bourgeoisie,  historically, 
consists  of  political  freedom  and  the  recognition  of  the 
rights  of  the  individual, — the  ideology  of  the  era  of 
free  competition,  of  laissez-faire.  In  this  democracy, 
freedom  of  action  is  a  cardinal  social  principal.  That 
government  is  considered  best  which  governs  least. 
Bourgeois  democracy  is,  on  the  one  hand,  a  reaction 
against  the  hierarchical  rigidity  of  Feudalism,  and  on 

1.  The  place  of  the  democratic  ideal  of  equality  lias  been  usurped  by  an 
oligarchical  ideal  of  domination.  But  if  that  ideal  seemingly  comprise*  the  whole 
nation  in  foreign  politics,  in  home  politics  it  changes  into  an  emphasizing  of  capitalist 
authority  over  the  working  class.  The  growing  power  of  the  workers  strengthens 
at  the  same  time  the  desire  of  capital  to  increase  further  the  power  of  the  state 
as  a  security  against  proletarian  demands.  Thus  the  ideology  of  Imperialism  arises 
and  conquers  the  old  liberal  ideals. — K.  Hilferding,  Das  Finanikapital. 

56 


THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY  57 

the  other,  an  expression  of  the  economic  individualism 
of  free  competition  which  is  the  distinguishing  feature 
of  Capitalism  in  its  pre-imperialistic  stages, — the 
democracy  of  the  individual,  independent  production 
and  exchange  of  commodities.  But  as  industry  con- 
centrates and  annihilates  free  competition,  the  ideol- 
ology  of  democracy  and  of  individual  independence 
is  displaced  by  the  ideology  of  domination.  The  fact 
may  be  disguised  by  prattle  about  the  interests  of  the 
collectivity  and  social  control;  it  is,  nevertheless,  a  re- 
action against  bourgeois  democracy. 

In  this  reaction  against  democracy,  industrial  facts 
are  the  compulsive  force.  The  larger  and  more  inte- 
grated the  industrial  units  become,  the  more  necessary 
is  the  subordination  of  the  individual  to  the  technolo- 
gical process.  There  is  a  lessening  of  the  individual- 
ity of  the  worker  in  industry;  the  technological  de- 
velopment progressively  renders  individual  skill  and 
independence  less  necessary,  except  in  the  case  of  a 
privileged  group  of  skilled  technicians  and  managers. 
An  essential  characteristic  of  concentrated  industry  is 
that  it  multiplies  the  mass  of  average,  unskilled  work- 
ers, and  deadens  their  individuality  and  intelligence  in 
so  far  as  the  technical  process  is  concerned.  Labor,  in 
the  measure  that  it  is  specialized  and  standardized,  be- 
comes mechanical.  This  circumstance  develops  con- 
tempt in  the  upper  class,  and  a  growing  disregard  of 
the  "rights"  of  these  workers.  The  general  reaction- 
ary tendency  in  education  and  the  campaign  for  tech- 


58  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

nical  education  in  the  public  schools  are,  largely,  a 
more  or  less  conscious  appreciation  of  the  fact  that  a 
general  and  increasing  intelligence  is  no  longer  neces- 
sary in  the  mass  of  labor;  mechanical  aptitude  for  a 
particular  kind  of  work  takes  its  place.  In  its  earlier 
period,  the  factory  system  required  and  developed 
the  general  intelligence  of  the  workers :  out  of  this  fact 
arose  compulsory  education;  today,  the  factory  sys- 
tem negates  intelligence  in  the  mass  of  workers. 

Moreover,  as  industry  develops,  internationalizes 
itself  and  Imperialism  arises,  the  democracy  of 
laissez-faire  is  considered  as  interfering  with  indus- 
trial efficiency  and  the  mobilization  of  national  power, 
and  is  incontinently  discarded.  Democracy,  to  the 
bourgeoisie,  was  a  means  to  an  end:  the  overthrow  of 
Feudalism  and  the  development  of  the  supremacy  of 
Capitalism.  Arrived  at  maturity  of  development, 
Capitalism  liberates  itself  from  the  ideology  of  de- 
mocracy in  the  measure  that  it  realizes  autocracy  may 
more  effectively  promote  its  interests.  The  state,  ac- 
cordingly, acquires  new  and  widening  powers;  the 
ideology  of  free  competition,  that  that  government  is 
best  which  governs  least,  is  substituted  by  the  concept 
that  that  government  is  best  which  governs  most,  which 
controls  the  forces  of  society  rigidly  and  autocratical- 
ly— in  the  interest,  of  course,  of  dominant  Capitalism! 
But  this  tranformation  in  the  state  is  not  comprised 
simply  in  the  widening  of  its  functions,  but  in  a  rad- 
ical alteration  of  its  procedure.  Parallel  with  the 


THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY  59 

acquisition  of  new  industrial  functions,  the  state  ac- 
quires a  new  procedure,  the  procedure  of  absolutism, 
and  becomes  an  autocracy  cloaked  in  the  cloak  of 
democratic  forms.  The  Roman  Republic  was  still 
democratic  in  appearance  for  decades  after  it  had 
become  autocratic  in  actuality. 

Capitalism  today  subordinates  everything  to  the 
success  of  its  imperialistic  adventures.  Autocracy, 
not  the  autocracy  of  a  Czaristic  Russia,  but  the  autoc- 
racy of  an  industrially  organized,  imperialistic  Ger- 
many, is  much  more  speedy  and  efficient  in  action  than 
democracy,  and,  moreover,  more  tractable  to  the  in- 
terests of  a  ruling  caste.  Government  having  engaged 
itself  to  promote  finance-capital  in  its  imperialistic 
projects,  it  becomes  increasingly  un-democratic.  In 
the  struggles  of  Imperialism,  the  resort  to  force  is  the 
ultimate  deciding  factor.  A  strong  government  is  in- 
dispensable— which  means  an  autocratically  central- 
ized government,  a  mighty  militarism,  and  the  intens- 
ive subordination  of  the  general  will  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  ruling  class.  The  spirit  of  militarism 
becomes  the  animating  spirit  of  the  state,  in  its  politi- 
cal and  industrial  action.  There  is  this  vital  similar- 
ity between  militarism  and  State  Capitalism,  that  each 
depends  upon  a  coerced  sense  of  discipline,  a  moral 
and  physical  regimentation  of  the  masses.  The  actual 
procedure  of  government  becomes  autocratic  where 
formerly  it  was  oligarchic.  The  power  of  the  state 
is  centralized  in  its  administrative,  and  not  its  legisla- 


60  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

tive,  department.  The  Chief  Executive  of  a  nation, 
whether  President,  Prime  Minister  or  Emperor,  be- 
comes vested  with  the  functions  of  dictator.  The 
Strong  Man  policy  dominates  throughout  society,2  and 
particularly  toward  the  activity  of  the  industrial  pro- 
letariat, the  subjection  of  which  becomes  increasingly 
indispensable. 

This  autocratic  tendency  is  strengthened  by  the  pro- 
Consul  system  of  government  that  an  imperialistic 
nation  imposes  upon  its  over-seas  possessions  and 
"protectorates."  The  pro-Consul  rules  with  an  iron 
hand,  exclusively  in  the  interests  of  the  ruling  class  of 
his  own  government;  democracy,  decency,  honesty,  all 
are  complacently  discarded,  and  a  moral  and  physical 
reign  of  terror  instituted  to  maintain  "undeveloped" 
peoples  in  subjugation.  A  brutal  and  brutalizing 
mercenary  soldiery  becomes  the  guardian  of  the  holy 
sanctuary  of  capitalist  civilization  and  profits, — par- 
ticularly profits.  The  Strong  Man  policy  is  necessary 
in  these  imperialistic  possessions,  and  it  reacts  and 
stimulates  a  similar  policy  at  home.  Imperialism  is 
international  and  its  policy  of  repression  is  interna- 
tional. The  rights  of  the  individual,  particularly  the 
mythical  rights  of  the  workers,  become  a  fetter  upon 
the  sway  and  development  of  capital,  and  are 

2.  This  development  it  particularly  strong  and  typical  in  the  United  States.  Its 
peculiar  form  of  government,  and  the  fact  that  the  Constitution  does  not  specify 
which  department  of  the  government  shall  assume  new  functions  as  they  develop—- 
the "twilight  /one,"  which  leaves  it  to  circumstances  to  decide  whether  the  legisla- 
ture or  the  executive  shall  absorb  new  powers — has  lodged  more  and  more  authority 
in  the  Presidency,  in  the  measure  that  the  development  of  industry  imposed  new 
functions  upon  the  government  that  the  Constitution  did  not  provide  for.  The 
President  has  become  virtual  dictator. 


THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY  61 

crushed.  Efficiency,  in  the  imperialistic  sense,  indus- 
trial and  political,  is  the  measure  by  which  all  things 
are  tested.  The  reactionary  trend  becomes  general 
and  all-pervasive. 

All  layers  of  the  ruling  class  acquiesce  in  this 
reaction,  the  petite  bourgeoisie,3  and  the  new  middle 
class.  The  bureaucratic  system  which  is  an  expres- 
sion of  this  reactionary  trend  in  government  draws  its 
material  largely  from  these  groups.  The  export  of 
bureaucrats  to  foreign  possessions  becomes  an  import- 
ant source  of  employment  and  revenue  for  members 
of  the  middle  class,  and  they  sing  hosannas  to  the  new 
imperialistic  dispensation.  The  opportunity  of  mak- 
ing a  career  is  enlarged  for  the  sons  of  the  petite 
bourgeoisie  through  the  military  and  civil  service  in 
colonial  territory.  In  various  ways,  financial,  indus- 
trial, social  and  political,  the  middle  and  the  lower 
layers  of  the  ruling  class  are  seduced  by  the  policy 
of  Imperialism,  become  its  most  reactionary  and 
brutal  adherents. 


3.  The  source  of  the  ideology  of  democracy,  with  all  its  traditions  and  illusions, 
is  the  petite  bourgeoisie.  In  the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  it  suffered 
a  complete  internal  transformation,  but  was  by  no  means  eliminated  from  political 
life.  At  the  very  moment  that  the  development  of  capitalist  technique  was  inexorably 
undermining  its  functions,  the  general  suffrage  right  and  universal  military  service 
were  still  giving  to  the  petite  bourgeoisie,  thanks  to  its  numerical  strength,  an 
appearance  of  political  importance.  Big  capital,  in  so  far  as  it  did  not  completely 
wipe  out  this  class,  subordinated  it  to  its  own  ends  by  means  of  the  application  of  the 
credit  system.  All  that  remained  for  the  political  representatives  of  Big  Capital  to 
do  was  to  subjugate  the  petite  bourgeoisie,  in  the  political  arena,  to  their  purposes, 
by  opening  a  fictitious  credit  to  the  declared  theories  and  prejudices  of  this  class. 
It  is  for  this  reason  that,  in  the  decade  preceding  the  war,  we  witnessed  side  by 
side  with  the  gigantic  efforts  of  a  reacionary-imperialistic  policy,  a  deceptive 
flowering  of  bourgeois  democracy  with  its  accompanying  reformism  and  pacifism 
Capital  was  making  use  of  the  petite  bourgeoisie  for  the  prosecution  of  capital's 
imperialistic  purposes  by  exploiting  the  ideologic  prejudices  of  the  petite  bourgeoisie.— 
Leon  Trotzky,  "Pacifism  in  the  Service  of  Imperialism,"  in  The  Class  Struggle, 
November-December,  1917. 


62  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

The  development  of  Capitalism,  jointly  with  the 
widening  of  collegiate  educational  opportunity,  has 
created  an  intellectual  proletariat,  workers  of  the 
brain.  National  Capitalism,  for  a  time,  absorbs  these 
"intellectuals."  But  a  stage  arrives  when  there  is  a 
real  over-production  of  this  class  of  workers.  Tem- 
porarily, their  imagination  is  intrigued  by  liberal 
social  movements,  and,  occasionally,  by  Socialism. 
But  inevitably,  if  gradually,  their  petty  bourgeois 
souls  scent  the  flesh-pots  of  Imperialism,  and  they 
become  its  prophets.  These  "workers  of  the  brain," 
the  surplus  which  is  not  absorbed  internally,  are  ex- 
ported to  colonial  possessions  and  "spheres  of  influ- 
ence," where  the  growing  industrial  and  social  devel- 
opment provides  opportunity  for  their  services.  As 
the  production  of  these  intellectuals  increases,  turned 
out  by  our  institutions  of  learning  as  a  factory  turns 
out  hats  and  shoes,  and  largely  standardized,  new 
fields  must  be  conquered  to  absorb  this  particular  com- 
modity, and  they  proclaim  the  mission  of  their  "super- 
ior race"  to  spread  the  blessings  of  civilization,  and 
incidentally  of  the  factory  system  and  the  intellect- 
uals, among  the  backward  races. 

In  every  imperialistic  country,  it  is  precisely  these 
"workers  of  the  brain"  who  manufacture  and  carry 
into  the  ranks  of  the  workers  the  ideology  and  the  en- 
thusiasm of  Imperialism.  These  intellectuals,  which 
the  older  Socialism  expected  would  become  a  mighty 
ally  of  the  proletarian  revolution,  are  a  corrupt  and 


THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY  63 

corrupting  social  force.  They  constitute  an  insidi- 
ously dangerous  force,  moreover,  as  they  disguise 
the  sordid  schemes  of  Imperialism  in  the  beauty  of 
science,  civilization,  and  progress  generally.  These 
intellectuals,  like  the  plague,  are  a  contamination 
everywhere;  but  they  are  particularly  numerous  and 
group-conscious  in  Germany,  where  they  constitute 
the  intellectual  army  of  Imperialism.  In  Bismarck's 
Erbe,  Prof.  Hans  Delbrueck  frankly  states  the  needs 
of  this  class:  "What  must  give  our  colonies  their 
specific  character  is  the  upper  layer,  the  thousands 
of  graduates  of  our  higher  and  intermediate  educa- 
tional institutions  which  are  being  constantly  pro- 
duced by  our  fine  school-system,  for  whose  talents 
there  is,  however,  no  suitable  employment  at  home. 
.  .  .  These  we  must  send  into  the  world  as  engi- 
neers, merchants,  planters,  physicians,  superintend- 
ents, officers,  to  rule  the  great  masses  of  the  inferior 
races,  as  the  English  are  doing  in  India. 
Such  a  colonial-Germany  will  not  only  rise  to  the  posi- 
tion of  World  Power,  but  will,  at  the  same  time,  solve 
our  most  difficult  social  problem — the  finding  of  suit- 
able employment  for  the  rising  sons  of  the  people, 
the  surplus  of  intelligence  which  finds  no  proper 
field  of  activity  at  home."  The  "intellectuals"  of 
Germany  were  intense  and  brutal  adherents  of  the 
war;  while  the  socially  different  intelligentsia  of  Rus- 
sia was  an  active  counter-revolutionary  force  in  the 
proletarian  revolution. 


64  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

Incidentally,  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  a 
phase  of  these  developments  is  an  intellectual  reac- 
tion. Pragmatism  becomes  the  philosophy  of  "lib- 
eral" Imperialism,  and  Bergsonism  the  philosophy  of 
State  Capitalism.  The  one  tests  all  things  by  the 
test  of  practice,  of  social  efficiency,  degraded  by  the 
miserable  bourgeois  soul  into  the  degrading  utilitar- 
ian philosophy  of  "results" ;  the  other  expresses,  in  a 
philosophy  in  which  reactionary  and  liberal  ideas 
jostle  each  other,  fusing  into  a  system  essentially  of 
reaction,  that  unity  of  divergent  class  interests  which 
characterizes  the  epoch  of  State  Capitalism,  camou- 
flaging itself  in  the  colors  of  radical  and  intellectual 
democracy.  The  philosopher  enters  the  service  of 
the  imperialist. 

In  matters  that  directly  concern  Imperialism  and 
State  Capitalism,  philosophy  is  reactionary;  in  other 
matters,  and  where  necessary  to  deceive,  it  is  radically 
liberal.  It  is  this  latter  circumstance  which  produces 
the  deception  that  the  new  era  intellectually  is  pro- 
gressive. The  developments  in  science  and  philoso- 
phy of  a  progressive  character,  which  are  inevitable, 
are  degraded  to  the  purposes  of  the  ruling  class.  Even 
in  its  progressive  aspects  the  new  philosophy  serves 
reactionary  purposes:  the  progressive  concept  that  the 
child's  mental  development  is  furthered  by  the  use  of 
the  hands  and  of  tools  becomes  transformed  into  a 
means  of  turning  out  good,  average  industrial  opera- 
tives; the  radical  hypothesis,  that  the  pragmatic  test 


THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY  65 

is  the  ultimate  test  of  philosophy  and  of  practice,  be- 
comes transformed  into  the  doctrine  that  what  is,  is 
right,  that  results  are  the  supreme  consideration,  and 
the  creation  of  a  new  social  god,  the  totem-god  of 
Efficiency.  It  is  this  circumstance  that  explains  the 
contradiction  of  a  "liberal"  social  thinker  promoting 
and  justifying  a  brutal  and  brutalizing  State  Capital- 
ism. Socially,  within  limits  that  are  rigidly  definite 
and  that  promote  the  interests  of  Capital,  Imperialism 
and  State  Capitalism  may  be  progressive;  politically, 
economically  and  internationally,  Imperialism  and 
State  Capitalism  are  compellingly  reactionary. 

Radical  and  liberal  social  movements  merge  and 
develop  into  a  new  "progressivism."  This  progres- 
sivism  is  an  ally  of  Imperialism,  promotes  and  is 
itself  promoted  by  Imperialism.  The  liberal  ideas 
and  social  reform  program  of  progressivism  proceed 
within  limits  which  not  only  do  not  hamper  Imperial- 
ism, but  directly  promote  its  growth  and  ascendancy. 
The  liberal  Lloyd-George  becomes  the  director  and 
dictator  of  the  war  of  an  Imperialism  that  formerly 
considered  him  its  worst  enemy.  The  characteristics 
of  this  new  progressivism  are  typical  in  the  United 
States,  where  they  have  acquired  definite  expression.4 
The  various  progressive  movements  of  the  decaying 

4.  Under  the  conditions  of  Imperialism,  progressivism  and  a  liberal  ideology 
become  the  great  means  of  developing  and  maintaining  the  war  spirit  of  a  people. 
The  majority  Socialism  of  Germany  gives  a  brutal  war  a  popular  and  democratic 
sanction;  the  imperialistic  bourgeoisie  of  France  pursues  its  sinister  purposes 
through  a  "people's  ministry"  consisting  of  radicals  and  "Socialists";  the  conservative 
Asquith  gives  way  to  the  radical  Lloyd-George,  who  seduces  labor  with  liberal  slogans, 
while  the  Labor  Party,  through  its  color  of  "labor"  and  its  progressivism  promotes  the 
war  and  becomes  the  last  bulwark  of  defence  of  British  Imperialism. 


66  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

middle  class  meet  defeat  after  defeat,  and  then  dis- 
aster. The  social  alignment  changes.  Where  the  old 
progressivism  coalesced  around  the  Democratic 
Party,  historically  the  party  of  the  small  bourgeoisie, 
the  new  progressivism  develops  within  the  Republican 
Party,  historically  the  party  of  Big  Capital  and  Im- 
perialism. The  enunciation  of  the  "New  National- 
ism" by  Theodore  Roosevelt  in  1912  marked  an  epoch 
in  American  politics.  It  was  a  clear  and  consistent 
formulation  of  the  requirements  of  the  new  era  of 
concentrated  industry  and  collectivistic  Capitalism. 
It  called  for  the  extension  of  the  functions  of  the 
Federal  government,  regulation  equally  of  capital  and 
labor,  the  Strong  Man  policy  of  administrative  cen- 
tralization of  the  powers  of  the  state,  and  the  neces- 
sity of  co-ordinating  and  unifying  all  the  forces  of 
the  capitalist  class  through  the  national  administrative 
control  of  industry, — in  all  essentials,  imperialistic 
State  Capitalism.  The  "New  Nationalism"  included 
a  series  of  social  reforms  and  progressive  measures 
typical  of  the  social  and  political  requirements  of 
Imperialism.  During  the  war,  Roosevelt  enunciated 
a  ,new  doctrine,  the  "Larger  Americanism,"  which, 
basing  itself  upon  the  program  of  the  "New  National- 
ism," developed  and  promoted  an  aggressive  foreign 
policy  as  a  necessary  means  of  promoting  the  inter- 
national imperialistic  interests  of  the  United  States. 
This  progressivism  is  rampantly  militaristic  and  im- 
perialistic: at  the  three  major  party  conventions  in 


THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY  67 

1916,  the  convention  of  the  Progressive  Party  was 
most  decidedly  militaristic  and  aggressive,  bitterly 
criticizing  the  "pacific"  policy  of  President  Wilson. 
This  progressivism  barters  away  its  ideals  and  inde- 
pendence for  a  share  in  the  spoils  of  Imperialism.5 
The  reaction  against  democracy  has  been  a  charac- 
teristic feature  of  the  United  States  for  the  past  fifty 
years.  The  Civil  War  and  its  aftermath  of  industrial 
expansion  marked  the  doom  of  the  older  democracy. 
The  dictatorship  of  the  Federal  government  during  the 
administration  of  Lincoln  persisted  into  the  adminis- 
tration of  Grant,  and  in  latent  or  open  form  became 
thereafter  a  feature  of  the  American  government. 
The  corruption  in  politics,  and  the  miserable  petty 
stature  of  the  men  elected  to  Congress,  developed 
popular  contempt  of  the  national  legislature,  and 
correspondingly  strengthened  the  powers  of  the  Presi- 
dency. The  actual  functions  of  government  were  as- 
sumed by  the  executive,  while  the  legislature  dickered 
for  partisan  political  advantages  and  waged  royal 
fights  over  the  "pork  barrel."  President  Roosevelt 
brutally  and  contemptuously  terrorized  Congress. 
President  Wilson  made  Congress  subservient  to  his 
will  in  all  things.  The  despotism  of  the  judiciary 

5.  The  reformist  policy  in  the  most  diverse  countries  aims  at  an  approach  toward 
the  progressive  and  reform-favoring  part  of  the  bourgeoisie  and  in  exchange  therefor 
is  ready  to  take  part  in  the  administration,  to  vote  budgets,  and  approve  of  colonial 
projects.  .  .  .  Twenty  years  ago  in  Germany  the  liberals  and  the  Catholic  Centre 
party  were  opponents  of  militarism  and  the  colonial  policy;  but  since  the  elections 
of  1907  all  opposition  of  these  petty  bourgeois  circles  against  policies  of  violence 
-and  force  has  disappeared. — Anton  Pannekoek,  "Imperialism  and  Social  Democracy," 
in  the  International  Socialst  Review,  October,  1914. 


68  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

emphasized  the  despotism  of  the  Presidency.  The 
centralization  and  autocracy  of  industry  expressed 
itself  in  the  centralization  and  autocracy  of  govern- 
ment. By  a  process  of  terrorism  and  ingenious  fraud 
the  right  to  the  franchise  was  extensively  limited. 
Democracy  was  trampled  upon  mercilessly,  particu- 
larly during  strikes. 

In  government,  as  in  industry,  autocracy  is  domi- 
nant. All  this  proceeds  simultaneously  with  the  intro- 
duction of  a  sham  democracy  operating  through  a 
variety  of  schemes  that  temporarily  deceives  the 
masses.  But  only  temporarily:  the  mailed  fit  too 
often  smashes  through  this  sham  democracy  and  ex- 
poses the  sinister  autocracy  and  brutality  that  direct 
the  nation. 

The  death  of  democracy,  of  bourgeois  democracy, 
and  the  intensified  struggle  against  the  oncoming  pro- 
letarian democracy  of  communist  Socialism,  are  the 
necessary  products  of  Imperialism  and  State  Capital- 
ism. Why  is  this  particularly  characteristic  of  the 
United  States?  There  are  three  typically  imperialis- 
tic nations,  each  emphasizing  a  particular  phase  of  the 
new  era.  Great  Britain, — which  typifies  Imperialism 
as  developed  upon  the  basis  of  an  old  established 
colonial  dominion;  Germany, — typifying  the  nation 
trying  to  establish  its  Imperialism  by  systematic  ag- 
gression and  rapine  among  a  world  of  imperialistic 
rivals;  and  the  United  States, — typifying  the  nation 
within  whose  borders  Imperialism  has  most  actively 


THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY  69 

established  itself,  drastically  developing  the  internal 
conditions  of  Imperialism.  The  Imperialism  of  Great 
Britain  and  Germany  is  most  highly  developed  in  its 
international  aspects;  that  of  the  United  States  in  its 
national  aspects.  Considering  the  circumstance  that 
the  altering  of  class  relations  and  institutions  gener- 
ally is  the  vital  feature  of  Imperialism,  the  United 
States  shows  the  typical  features  of  an  imperialistic 
nation.  Its  reaction  against  democracy  and  its  imper- 
ialistic forms  generally  are,  accordingly,  particularly 
marked  and  typical  in  expression. 

The  early  democracy  of  America,  the  ideology  of 
Jeffersonian  democracy,  was  the  expression  of  the  in- 
terests and  commodity  relations  of  the  small  farmers, 
traders  and  pioneers.  The  active  flux  of  life  among 
the  people,  the  free  lands  out  West  which  irresistibly 
attracted  settlers  and  its  resulting  expansion,  devel- 
oped the  conditions  of  social  equality  and  political 
democracy.  These  conditions  provided  the  necessary 
basis  for  the  development  of  Capitalism,  culminating 
in  the  great  struggle  of  the  Civil  War  between  the  sys- 
tem of  capital  and  the  system  of  slavery.  In  the  Civil 
War  the  early  democracy  was  immediately  victorious, 
but  the  conditions  produced  by  its  victory  swiftly 
brought  its  own  defeat.  The  petty  bourgeois  ideology 
of  democracy  of  the  small  traders  and  independent 
farmers  was  crushed  under  the  onward  tread  of  in- 
dustrial concentration.  The  expansion  westward  was 
no  longer  independently  agrarian,  but  industrial;  it 


70  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

did  not  produce  the  conditions  of  an  agrarian  democ- 
racy, but  of  an  industrial  autocracy.  The  free  lands 
not  yet  occupied  were  seized  by  Capital.  The  early 
democracy  persisted  ideologically  and  expressed  itself 
in  a  series  of  revolts  of  the  farmers  and  the  middle 
class,  but  all  to  no  avail:  the  domination  of  Capital  was 
unshaken.  And  this  reaction  against  democracy  was 
emphasized  by  the  appearance  of  Imperialism;  for 
Imperialism  in  the  United  States  appears  as  early  as 
the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  and  the  construction  of  the 
great  trans-continental  railway  systems. 

The  construction  of  the  Bagdad  railway,  clearly, 
was  an  imperialistic  enterprise;  it  is  not  so  clear  that 
the  construction  of  the  trans-continental  railway  sys- 
tems of  this  country  was  equally  an  imperialistic 
enterprise.  But  it  becomes  clear  when  one  considers 
that  the  purpose  of  the  Bagdad  railway  was  to  develop 
and  exploit  undeveloped  regions;  and  that  was  pre- 
cisely the  purpose  of  the  great  American  railways. 
The  building  of  a  railway  in  an  undeveloped  country, 
generally,  is  financed  in  a  measure  by  the  government 
and  valuable  concessions  of  lands  and  mines  are  se- 
cured; and  the  identical  procedure  was  pursued  in 
this  country.  The  new  West  played  the  role  of  colonies 
and  undeveloped  regions,  the  industrialized  East  the 
role  of  the  developed  country  exporting  capital  and 
engaging  in  financial  schemes  of  development.  True 
enough,  there  was  no  mass  of  unskilled  labor  in  these 
new  regions,  as  in  China  and  Turkey;  but  this  labor 


THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY  71 

was  provided  in  the  shape  of  immigrants,  who  were 
treated  with  the  same  brutality  as  "inferior  races"  in 
an  undeveloped  country.  This  "internal"  Imperialism 
was  in  a  measure  actively  promoted  by  the  export  of 
European  capital  to  the  United  States. 

The  concentration  of  industry,  based  upon  this  new 
industrial  expansion,  proceeded  more  rapidly  and  on 
a  larger  scale  than  in  any  other  country,  and  acceler- 
ated the  rise  of  an  external  American  Imperialism, 
which  adventured  in  Central  America  and  the  Carrib- 
beans,  and  waged  an  imperialistic  war  for  the  "libera- 
tion" of  Cuba, — and  the  annexation  of  the  Philip- 
pines! The  typical  conditions  of  Imperialism  devel- 
oped: the  centralization  of  authority  in  the  national 
government;  intensive  brutality  toward  labor;  the 
appearance  of  the  new  forms  of  progressivism  and 
State  Capitalism;  the  decay  of  democracy;  the  alter- 
ing of  class  groupings  and  relations,  and  the  definite 
cleavage  between  skilled  and  unskilled  labor,  the 
unions  of  the  aristocracy  of  labor  abandoning  the 
general  class  struggle  and  intriguing  to  become  a  part 
of  the  ruling  system  of  things. 

Under  these  conditions,  the  attitude  of  the  state 
toward  labor  becomes  one  compounded  of  cajolery 
and  brutality,  and  particularly  brutality  toward  the 
unskilled.  In  no  country  in  the  world,  except  in  a 
colony,  is  unskilled  labor  treated  as  brutally  as  in 
this  country.  Strikes  are  crushed  ruthlessly  by  armed 
force,  and  even  more  ruthlessly  by  the  terrorism  and 


72  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

tyranny  of  the  courts:  strikers  are  refused  the  right 
to  picket,  are  often  denied  the  right  of  assemblage, 
their  press  is  suppressed  and  their  representatives 
thrown  into  jail,  the  injunction  becomes  a  Cossack's 
knout  to  lash  the  strikers  into  subjection.  The  great 
industrial  revolts  of  recent  years, — Coeur  d'Alene, 
McKees  Rocks,  Lawrence,  Paterson,  Ludlow,  the 
Mesaba  Range — all  these  are  historic  mile-posts  in 
the  development  of  the  ruthless  policy  of  suppression 
adopted  by  imperialistic  State  Capitalism  against  the 
industrial  proletariat  of  unskilled  labor. 

The  sham  democracy  of  Imperialism  is  the  domin- 
ant democracy.  The  brutality  of  Imperialism  is  gen- 
eral. Formerly  the  carrier  of  democracy,  the  nation 
has  become  the  carrier  of  Imperialism  and  reaction. 
All  social  groups,  except  the  industrial  proletariat 
of  unskilled  labor,  have  become  reactionary,  are  in  a 
status  where  their  interests  are  promoted  by  Imperial- 
ism, and  are  counter-revolutionary.  The  industrial 
proletariat  is  determined  by  its  class  interests  in  a 
struggle  against  Imperialism  and  the  ruling  system 
of  things.  Non-proletarian  groups  can  no  longer  be 
utilized  in  the  struggle  against  dominant  Capitalism: 
they  are  now  an  integral  part  of  this  Capitalism;  the 
proletariat  alone  can  carry  on  the  struggle,  independ- 
ently and  through  revolutionary  Socialism.  The  strug- 
gle for  the  revival  of  the  old  bourgeois  democracy  can- 
not in  any  way  become  a  part  of  our  activity;  this 
activity  is  determined  by  the  struggle  for  the  new,  the 


THE  DEATH  OF  DEMOCRACY  73 

fundamental  proletarian  democracy  of  communist 
Socialism. 


V 
FUNDAMENTALS   OF   SOCIALISM 

THE  class  struggle  is  the  dynamic,  unifying  synthe- 
sis_of  Socialist  tEebry  and  practice.  History  is  a  his- 
tory  ofclassj^uggles.  A  particular  class  is  the  car- 
rier of  a  particular  social  system;  this  class  is  over- 
thrown by  a  rising  class  representing  a  new  social 
system.  Society  develops  in  accord  with  economic 
conditions;  these  conditions  develop  a  ruling  and  a 
subject  class,  consequently  economic,  political  and 
moral  antagonisms;  the  dynamic  expression  of  these 
antagonisms  is  their  unity  in  the  class  struggle.  The 
issues  involved  in  the  rivalry  of  interests  is  decided 
by  the  struggle  of  class  against  class,  which  is  not  a 
struggle  for  particular  mercenary  interests,  but  the 
struggle  of  social  system  against  social  system,  the 
mechanics  of  social  development.  The  economic  de- 
velopment of  capitalist  society  has  produced  the  sub- 
ject class  of  the  proletariat,  providing  the  material 
conditions  of  waging  the  class  struggle  for  the  over- 
throw of  Capitalism,  and  the  proletariat  is  the  carrier 
of  this  class  struggle. 

74 


FUNDAMENTALS  OF  SOCIALISM  75 

The  proletariat,  in  the  Marxian  sense,  consists  of 
average  or  unskilled  labor,  the  form  of  labor  typical 


of  modern  Capitalism;1  it  alone  is 
clasg^as  it  alone  represents  the  dominant  factor  in 
industry  and  is  the  carrier  of  the  new  social  system 
of  communist  Socialism  ;_all  other  classes  or  social 
groups  are  reactionary,  decay,  disappear,  or  become 
absorbed  in  the  general  reactionary  mass  of  ruling 
class  interests,  in  the  measure  that  the  process  of 


Big  Capital.     The  antagonisms  of  interest  between 

labor  and  capital  assume  a  more  general  character, 

and  develop  into  the  class  struggle  of  the  revolution- 

ary proletariat  for  the  overthrow  of  Capitalism.  This 

class  strugle  alone  is  fundamental;  it  alone  functions 

dynamically  in  the  process  of  bringing  the  Social 

Revolution  and  Socialism  ;  and  there  can  be  no  Social- 

ism that  is  not  firmly  based  upon  the  class  struggle. 

The  class  struggle  implies  and  makes  mandatory 

the  active,  aggressive  struggle  against  Capitalism  and 

I  for'  Socialism;  it  negates  the  process  of  a  gradual, 

pacific   penetration   of  Capitalism   by   Socialism,   a 

Ingrowing  into"  the  Socialist  community.     The  class 

1.  In  proportion  as  the  bourgeoisie,  i.  e.,  capital,  is  developed,  in  the  same/ 
proportion  is  the  proletariat,  the  modern  working  class,  developed;  a  class  of 
laborers,  who  live  only  so  long  as  they  find  work,  only  so  long  as  their  labor  increase* 
capital.  These  laborers,  who  must  sell  themselves  piece-meal,  arc  a  commodity,  like 
every  other  article  of  commerce,  and  arc  consequently  exposed  to  all  vicissitudes  of 
competition,  to  all  fluctuations  of  the  market.  Owing  to  the  extensive  use  of  ma- 
chinery and  the  division  of  labor,  the  work  of  the  proletarians  has  lost  all  individual 
character,  and,  consequently,  all  charm  for  the  workman.  He  becomes  an  appendage 
of  the  machine,  and  it  is  the  most  simple,  most  monotonous,  and  most  easily  acquired 
knack,  that  is  required  of  him.  .  .  .  The  proletariat,  the  lowest  stratum  of  our 
present  society,  cannot  stir,  cannot  raise  itself  up,  without  the  whole  super-incumbent 
strata  of  official  society  being  sprung  into  the  air.  —  Communist  Manifesto. 


76  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

struggle  and  Socialism  are  made  of  sterner  stuff.  All 
temporary  action  and  achievements  are  to  arouse 
the  independence  and  virility  of  the  proletariat;  the 

!  dominant  factor  is  that  the  proletariat  should  acquire 
moral,  intellectual  and  class  consciousness,  develop  its 
action  and  class  power.  The  process  and  means  of 
achievement  become  of  equal  importance  with  the 
achievement  itself.  The  proletariat  must  continually 
express  itself  in  its  own  class  action  against  Capital- 
ism, and  the  class  struggle  becomes  more  aggressive, 
more  intensive  and  more  general  in  scope  and  pur- 
,poses.  And  this  is  the  function  of  Socialism,  as  the 
[intellectual  expression  and  advance  guard  of  the  pro- 
letariat, that  it  absorb,  and  become  itself  absorbed  in, 
,  the  class  struggle  of  the  proletariat,  directing  it  to  the 
/  Social  Revolution. 

In  this  process,  the  consciousness  of  the  proletariat 
is  the  determining  consideration.  The  development  of 
Capitalism,  in  itself,  whether  in  the  form  of  industrial 
concentration  or  the  introduction  of  collectivistic  so- 
cial and  political  institutions,  will  not  bring  Socialism. 
This  development  is  indispensable  as  providing  the 
objective,  material  conditions  for  Socialism,  and  im- 
portant in  its  influence  upon  the  consciousness  of  the 
proletariat.  True  enough,  in  its  historical  aspects, 
the  two  developments  are  phases  of  one  tendency, 
each  equally  the  product  of  the  conditions  of  Capital- 
ism. The  Socialist  movement,  however,  is  directly 
and  particularly  concerned  with  the  moral,  intellectual 


FUNDAMENTALS  OF  SOCIALISM  77 

and  class  consciousness  of  the  proletariat,  of  further- 
ing its  aggressive  action,  and  of  developing  in  its 
ideology  and  action  the  concept  of  the  Social  Revolu- 
tion. This  subjective  development  supplements  the 
objective  conditions,  and  it  alone  can  bring  Socialism. 

The  material  and  dynamic  factors  in  this  revolu- 
tionary process  of  the  proletarian  revolution  have  been 
described  by  Marx  in  brilliant  and  imperishable 
words:2 

"As  soon  as  the  laborers  are  turned  into  proletar- 
ians, their  means  of  labor  into  capital;  as  soon  as  the 
capitalist  mode  of  production  stands  on  its  own  feet; 
then  the  further  socialization  of  labor  and  further 
transformation  of  the  land  and  other  means  of  produc- 
tion also  socially  exploited  and,  therefore,  common 
means  of  production,  as  well  as  the  further  expropria- 
tion of  private  proprietors,  take  a  new  form.  That 
which  is  now  to  be  expropriated  is  no  longer  the 
laborer  working  for  himself,  but  the  capitalist  ex- 
ploiting many  laborers.  This  expropriation  is  accom- 
plished by  the  action  of  the  immanent  laws  of  cap- 
italistic production  itself,  by  the  centralization  of 
capital.  One  capitalist  always  kills  many.  Hand  in 
hand  with  this  centralization,  or  this  expropriation  of 
many  capitalists  by  few,  develop,  on  an  ever  extending 
scale,  the  co-operative  form  of  the  labor  process,  the 
conscious  technical  application  of  science,  the  method- 

2.  Karl  Marx,  Capital,  Vol.  1,  chapter  XXXII,  "Historical  Tendency  of  Capitalist 
Accumulation." 


78  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

ical  cultivation  of  the  soil,  the  transformation  of  the 
instruments  of  labor  into  instruments  of  labor  usable 
only  in  common,  the  economizing  of  all  means  of 
production  by  their  use  as  the  means  of  production 
of  combined,  socialized  labor,  the  entanglement  of  all 
peoples  in  the  net  of  the  world-market,  and  with  this, 
the  international  character  of  the  capitalistic  regime. 
*  Along  with  the  constantly  diminishing  number  of  the 
magnates  of  capital,  who  usurp  and  monopolize  all 
advantages  of  this  process  of  transformation,  grows 
/the  mass  of  misery,  oppression,  slavery,  degradation, 
(exploitation;3  but  with  this  too  grows  the  revolt  of 
•  the  working  class,  a  class  always  increasing  in  num- 
bers, and  disciplined,  united,  organized  by  the  very 
mechanism  of  the  process  of  capitalist  production 

3.  Many  a  vulgar  bourgeois  economist,  and  .here  and  there  a  Socialist,  hat 
maintained  that  the  "theory  of  increasing  misery"  was  an  essential  doctrine  of 
Marxian  Socialism.  It  is  not.  In  the  passage  quoted  above,  this  is  described  as  a 
tendency  of  Capitalism,  along  with  another  tendency,  the  inevitable  and  growing  revolt 
of  the  workers.  The  increasing  poverty  of  the  proletariat  is  not  in  any  sense  a 
necessary  condition  for  the  Social  Revolution.  Moreover,  there  is  not  any  sufficiency 
of  material  to  decide  whether  poverty  is  lessening  or  not;  the  caste  of  skilled 
labor  may  be  more  "prosperous,"  but  surely  not  the  mass  of  unskilled  workers. 
Who  will  deny,  however,  that  a  society  which  produces  such  a  holocaust  as  the  war, 
does,  even  should  it  better  conditions  of  living,  intensify  "the  mass  of  misery, 
oppression,  slavery,  degradation,  exploitation"?  On  the  general  problem,  L.  B. 
Boudin's  The  Theoretical  System  of  Karl  Marx  has  an  interesting  passage:  "Marx 
does  not  speak  of  the  growth  of  the  poverty  of  the  working  class.  The  omission 
of  any  reference  to  poverty  is  very  significant  in  so  careful  a  writer  as  Marx.  This 
alone  would  be  sufficient  warrant  for  us  in  assuming  that  Marx  did  not  consider  the 
growing  poverty  of  the  working  class  a  necessary  result  of  the  evolution  of  Capitalism. 
.  .  .  The  lot  of  the  laborer,  his  general  condition  as  a  member  of  society,  must 
grow  worse  with  the  accumulation  of  capital,  no  matter  whether  his  wages  are  high 
or  low.  His  poverty,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  word,  depends  upon  the  amount 
of  wages  he  gets,  but  not  his  social  condition.  And  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first 
place,  because  the  social  condition  of  any  man  or  class  can  only  be  determined  by 
a  comparison  with  the  rest  of  the  members  or  classes  of  that  society.  It  is  not  an 
absolute  but  a  relative  quantity.  Even  the  question  of  poverty  is  a  relative  one,  and 
changes  from  time  to  time  with  the  change  of  circumstances.  But  the  question 
of  social  condition  can  never  be  determined  except  by  a  reference  to  the  other 
classes  of  society.  This  is  decided  not  by  the  absolute  amount  of  worldly  good* 
which  they  receive  in  all  the  worldly  goods  possessed  by  society.  Thus  considered  it 
will  be  found  that  the  gulf  between  the  capitalist  and  the  working  man  is  con- 
stantly growing  wider.  This  is  admitted  by  all  as  an  empirical  fact." 


FUNDAMENTALS  OF  SOCIALISM  79 

itself.  The  monopoly  of  capital  becomes  a  fetter  upon 
the  mode  of  production,  which  has  sprung  up  and 
flourished  along  with,  and  under  it.  Centralization 
of  the  means  of  production  and  socialization  of  labor 
at  last  reach  a  point  where  they  become  incompatible 
with  their  capitalist  integument.  This  integument  is 
burst  asunder.  The  knell  of  capitalist  private  property 
sounds.  The  expropriators  are  expropriated.  .  .  . 
The  transformation  of  scattered  private  property,  aris- 
ing from  individual  labor,  into  capitalist  private  prop- 
erty is,  naturally,  a  process  incomparably  more  pro- 
tracted, violent  and  difficult  than  the  transformation 
of  capitalistic  private  property,  already  practically 
resting  on  socialized  production,  into  socialized  prop- 
erty. In  the  former  case  we  had  the  expropriation  of 
the  mass  of  the  people  by  a  few  usurpers ;  in  the  latter 
we  have  the  expropriation  of  a  few  usurpers  by  the 
mass  of  the  people." 

There  is  no  indication  in  this  passage,  nor  any- 
Avhere  else  in  Marx,  of  a  Socialist  "penetration"  of 
I  the  capitalist  system,  nor  of  state  and  social  collectiv- 
I  ism  as  a  phase  of  Socialism  in  the  process  of  revolu- 
ftionizing  the  capitalist  order.    The  material  factor  of 
industrial  development  operates  jointly  with  the  dy- 
namic factor  of  proletarian  action.     "Centralization 
of  the  means  of  production  and  socialization  of  labor 
at  last  reach  a  point  where  they  become  incompatible 
with  their  capitalist  integument.     This  integument  is 
burst  asunder.    The  expropriators  are  expropriated" 


80  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

by  the  proletariat  "disciplined,  united,  organized  by 
the  very  mechanism  of  the  process  of  capitalist  pro- 
duction itself."  It  is  by  and  through  industry  that 
the  proletariat  expresses  itself,  awakens  to  conscious- 
ness of  class  and  power,  and  acquires  the  physical  and 
moral  reserves  for  the  revolutionary  "dictatorship  of 
the  proletariat"  that  will  function  temporarily  as  the 
prelude  to  the  abolition  of  all  class  divisions  and  tyr- 
anny, consequent  upon  the  establishment  of  the  full 
and  free  democracy  of  Socialism.  All  the  activity  of 
the  proletariat,  industrial,  political,  social,  functions 
for  the  purpose  of  developing  a  partial  control  of 
industry  that  will  in  the  final  stage  of  the  revolution 
i  become  a  complete  communistic  control  of  industry  by 
I  the  proletariat, — industrial  self-government  of  the 
workers. 

As  capitalist  production  is  internationalized,  the 
class  struggle  becomes  international.  The  maturity 
of  Socialism  is  measured  by  the  strength  of  its  ideals 
of  international  solidarity  in  action.  The  nation  be- 
comes a  fetter  upon  production,  and  equally  a  fetter 
upon  the  emancipation  of  the  proletariat.  The  bour- 
geoisie breaks  the  fetters  of  the  nation,  through  Im- 
perialism, in  the  interest  of  its  own  class  purposes,  as 
a  national  entity;  the  proletariat  must  break  the  fetters 
of  the  nation,  of  national  consciousness  and  action,  in 
the  interest  of  its  own  local  and  international  class 
purposes.  The  Social  Revolution  is  an  international 
revolution. 


FUNDAMENTALS  OF  SOCIALISM  81 

Socialism,  accordingly,  is  exclusively  the  expres- 
sion of  the  interests  of  the  proletariat.  Socialism  is 
not^jhe  conquest  of  the  state  by  a  political  party:  it 
is  the  conquest  of  society  by  the  proletariat  through 
industrial  and  political  action.  ^Socialism  is  not  col- 
lectivism; it  disrupts  the  collectivism  of  State  Capital- 
ism, which  is  simply  a  means  of  protecting  and  pro- 
moting capitalist  interests  and  more  easily  oppressing 
the  proletariat,  and  establishes  the  communism  of  in- 
dustrial self-government. 

Socialism  is  not  government  ownership  or  control 
of  industry,  two  things  that  are  purely  a  capitalist  ex- 
pression fSocialism  struggles  for  the Jransf ormatiqnjrf 
the  state,  not  the  enlarging  of  its  functions.  At  firsL 
the  proletariat  is  seduced  by  the  idea  of  state  benefi- 
cence; it  sees  in  parliamentary  struggles  and  legisla- 
tion the  supreme  means  of  expressing  its  class  inter- 
ests. As  it  acquires  maturity,  the  realization  is  im- 
pressed upon  its  consciousness  and  action  that  the  state 
increasingly  multiplies  the  powers  for  shackling  thej 
proletariat;  as  the  facts  of  its  industrial  power  are 
recognized,  the  proletariat  becomes  contemptuous  of; 
the  state.  Then  it  appreciates  in  its  action  the  funda- 
mental concept  of  Socialism, — the  class  struggle,  as 
expressed  in  revolutionary  Socialism,  is  a  struggle 
to  place  the  management  and  control  of  industry 
directly  in  the  workers  through  the  overthrow  of  Cap-^ 
italism  and  its  governmental  expression  in  the  state. 
Socialism,  in  the  words  of  Engels,  is  not  the  govern- 


82 


REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 


ment  of  persons,  but  the  administration  of  things.  The 
state,  and  its  authority  masking  itself  as  democracy, 

disappears;  in  its  place  rises  the  communism  of  the 


initia- 


tive  centralized  in  the  administra!ive~~process  of  deter- 
nuning  the  facts  of  production  antt  distribution^  and 


general  way  for  international 


VI 
SOCIALISM   IN   ACTION 

THE  action  of  the  Socialist  movement  has  been 
largely  the  very  opposite  of  its  fundamentals.  It 
has  theoretically  cleaved  to  these  fundamentals, — 
in  Germany  most,  in  the  United  States  least;  but  it 
has  repeatedly  and  cumulatively  violated  them  in  the 
actual  activity  of  the  movement. 

J5ocialism_in  action  has  been_making  for  State 
Capitalism,  not^ Socialism;  it  abandoned  the  proletar- 
ian  class  struggle,  and  became  a  general  social  reform 
movement;  it_ojc^u£ie^its^f_widL4iarliaments  and 
legislation,  not  withthe  action  of  the^prpletariat  itself^, 
instead  of  awakening  the  revolutionary  consciousness 
of  the  proletariat,  it  deadened,  thai  consciousness^ 
Socialism  became  a  petty  bourgeois  Messiah,  where  it 
should  have  been  proletarian  pioneer  and  rebel;  it 
has  not  fulfilled  its  function  of  being  the  intellectual 
and  revolutionary  expression  of  the  proletariat. 
/  The  revolutionary  Socialism  of  Marx  developed 
into  the  petty  bourgeois  Socialism  of  the  Second  Inter- 
national. The  Paris  Commune  and  its  consequent  re- 

83 


84  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

action  marked  the  downfall  of  the  First  International. 
The  conditions  of  the  ensuing  epoch,  the.  epoch  of  de- 
velopment along  national  lines,  compelled  the  pro- 
letariat, which,  moreover,  had  not  as  a  whole  assumed 
its  typical  class  character,  to  lay  aside  the  great  task 
of  revolutionizing  the  world,  and  to  pursue  the  peace- 
ful development  of  organization  activity.  But  this 
organization  activity  represented  only  a  part  of  the 
proletariat;  moreover,  it  came  under  the  influence  and 
domination  of  petty  bourgeois  ideals.  The  organized 
Socialism  that  developed  out  of  this  state  of  facts  was 
petty,  hesitant,  compromising;  and  it  retained  this 
character  after  the  proletariat  emerged  into  the  new 
revolutionary  epoch  of  Imperialism. 

In  becoming  a  movement  of  general  social  reform, 
Socialism  expressed  the  interests  of  the  aristocracy 
|  of  skilled  labor  and  the  lower  layers  of  the  petty 
1  bourgeoisie,  and  of  the  new  middle  class  in  its  earlier 
\  stages   of   development.      Practically   every   revolt, 
every  aspiration  of  a  middle  class  being  destroyed 
by  concentrated   industry  was   echoed   in   Socialist 
propaganda  and  activity.    The  demand  of  this  class 
for  government  ownership  of  industry  became  the 
leit-motiv  of  Socialist  propaganda,  and  Socialism  in 
practice  was  a  movement  for  government  ownership 
and  the  extension  of  the  functions  of  the  state  gener- 
ally.   Compromise  after  compromise  was  struck  with 
the  fundamentals  of  Socialism  in  order  to  placate  and 
secure  the  support  of  non-revolutionary  and  non-pro- 


SOCIALISM  IN  ACTION  85 

letarian  groups.  The  thought  of  the  movement,  its 
activity  and  representation,  became  that  of  the  liberal 
petite  bourgeoisie  and  the  aristocracy  of  labor. 

The  fatal  consequence  was  the  betrayal  of  the  new, 
the  real  proletariat,  which  was  emerging  to  conscious- 
ness and  action,  the  industrial  proletariat  of  average, 
unskilled  labor.  Instead  of  appreciating  the  revolu- 
tionary potentiality  of  this  class  and  arousing  and 
expressing  its  activity,  the  dominant  Socialism  be- 
trayed unskilled  labor,  used  it  directly  and  indirectly 

\to  promote  the  petty  interests  of  the  aristocracy  of 
Jabor  and  the  small  bourgeoisie.  The  revolts  of  un- 
skilled labor  against  this  reactionary  domination  were 
repeatedly  crushed,  brutally  and  unscrupulously,  by 
the  bureaucracy  of  organized  Socialism.1  Every 
intellectual  expression  of  the  unskilled  in  the  move- 
ment was  met  with  contempt  and  rejection.  It  was 
easier  to  build  a  party  and  a  bureaucracy,  easier  to 
secure  political  offices,  by  catering  to  non-revolution- 
ary elements;  it  was  a  task  of  real  magnitude,  and 
acceptable  only  to  the  real  revolutionist,  to  represent 

/  and  awaken  the  despised,  inchoate  mass  of  the  un- 
skilled. But  this  is  precisely  the  task  of  Socialism, 
to  express  and  awaken  the  real  revolutionary  class  for 


1.  In  the  United  States,  the  unskilled,  because  of  the  high  degree  of  "internal" 
imperialistic  development,  have  acquired  a  large  self-consciousness  and  activity,  and 
the  betrayal  of  the  unskilled  by  the  dominant  Socialism  and  its  accessory  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  has  nowhere  been  as  complete  as  in  this  country.  McKce* 
Rocks,  Paterson,  the  Mesaba  Range,  the  great  strikes  of  the  unskilled  and  the 
I.  W.  W.  generally,  have  not  secured  any  real  support  from  the  dominant  forces  in 
the  Socialist  Party,  and  have  been  usually  betrayed,  either  actively  or  by  default. 
It  is  true  that  the  party  took  up  the  Lawrence  strike  and  the  Ludlow  outrages,  but 
this  was  done  equally  by  liberal  bourgeois  representatives;  and  in  this,  again,  the 
Socialist  Party  was  true  to  its  official  petty  bourgeois  ideology. 


86  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

action  and  the  conquest  of  power;  and  in  rejecting 
this  task,  Socialism-became  a  liberal  reform  move- 
ment, fundamentally  non-proletarian  and  non-revolu- 
tionary. 

Moreover,  Socialism  adopted  the  policy  of  the 
pacific  "penetration"  of  Socialism  into  Capitalism, 
realizing  the  Socialist  community  by  the  extension  of 
capitalist  collectivism.  The  practice  of  the  movement 
based  itself  upon  the  development  of  Capitalism,  in- 
stead of  upon  the  revolutionary  development  of  the 
proletariat.  It  was  a  policy  that  expressed  the  trend 
toward  State  Capitalism  and  emphasized  the  trend. 
Where  the  Socialist  movement  was  large,  as  in  Ger- 
many, it  practically  absorbed  the  national  liberal 
forces  of  social  reform;  where  small,  Socialism  be- 
came an  integral  part  of  the  national  liberal  reform 
movement.  Capitalism,  not  the  proletariat,  was  to 
'bring  Socialism, — this  was  the  actual  policy  of  the 
anovement,  in  spite  of  utterances  and  a  theoretical  sys- 
tem to  the  contrary. 

The  task  of  the  proletariat  was  conceived  as  decis- 
ively the  immediate  improvement  of  its  material  wel- 
fare, but  this  process  of  improvement  was  determined 
almost  exclusively  by  the  proposals  of  skilled  labor 
and  the  small  bourgeoisie.  The  transformation  of 
Socialist  tactics  was  general;  the  revolutionary  strug- 
gle for  the  overthrow  of  Capitalism  was  displaced  by 
the  policy  of  "modifying"  Capitalism  and  softening 
of  class  antagonisms.  The  Socialist  theory  of  Marx- 


SOCIALISM  IN  ACTION  87 

ism  maintained  itself,  although  not  in  any  sense  ex- 
pressing the  actual  basis  of  the  movement;  against  it 
washed  the  tides  of  revisionism,  which  desired  an 
adaptation  of  theory  in  accord  with  the  bourgeois 
practices  of  the  movement,  and  the  tides  of  revolu- 
tionary thought,  which  desired  to  have  the  movement 
adapt  its  practice  to  the  requirements  of  Imperialism 
and  the  new  revolutionary  epoch  into  which  the  pro- 
letariat had  emerged.2 

The  apparent  futility  of  theoretical  controversy 
among  the  Socialist  intellectuals  was  a  consequence  of 
considering  differences  in  tactics  as  theoretical  prob- 
lems, instead  of  as  essentially  problems  in  practice, 
in  the  actual  relations  of  classes  and  the  expression 
of  class  interests.  The  doctrinaire  Socialist,  the 
pseudo-Marxist,  conceives  Socialism  as  a  sort  of 

2.     Marxism,    originally    and    essentially    a    revolutionary    system,    was    perverted 

(by  the  pseudo-Marxists  into  an  instrument  for  maintaining  the  status  quo  in  the 
Socialist  movement,  a  status  becoming  increasingly  antiquated  and  consequently 
reactionary.  The  struggle  between  Marxism  and  "fteviaiflaUjn  resulted  in  a  theoretical 
victory  for  Marxism;  and  yet  the  Social  Democracy  in  practice  became  increasingly 
Revisionist,  while  it  was  held  up  by  "Marxists"  everywhere  as  the  model  Socialist 
Party.  These  Marxists,  typified  by  Karl  Kautsky  in  Germany,  Jules  Cuesde  in 
France  and  C.  Plekhanov  in  Russia,  were  fundamentally  a  reactionary  factor,  and 
each  in  his  particular  way  collapsed  miserably  under  the  test  of  the  war.  Their 
thought  expresses  the  characteristics  of  bourgeois  revolutions,  in  which,  according 
to  Marx,  "the  phrase  surpasses  the  substance."  They  represent  the  "center,"  the 
Marxism  of  which  is  neither  revolutionary  nor  of  Marx,  and  which,  precisely  because 
it  uses  revolutionary  phrases  in  its  criticism  of  the  "right,"  is  particularly  danger- 
ous. In  a  brochure  written  in  April,  1917,  N.  Lenin  said:  "The  center  is  the  heaven 
of  petty  bourgeois  phrases,  of  lip  internationalism,  of  cowardly  opportunism,  of 
compromise  with  the  social-patriots.  The  fact  is  that  the  center  is  not  convinced 
of  the  necessity  of  a  revolution  against  the  government  of  its  own  country;  it  doe* 
not  preach  that  kind  of  a  revolution,  it  does  not  wage  an  incessant  fight  for  the 
revolution,  and  it  resorts  to  the  lowest,  super-Marxist  dodges  to  get  out  of  the  difficulty. 
The  members  of  the  center  group  are  routine  worshippers,  eaten  up  by  the  gangrene 
of  legality,  corrupted  by  the  parliamentary  comedy,  bureaucrats  accustomed  to  nice 
sinecures.  Historically  and  economically  they  do  not  represent  any  special  stratum 
of  society;  they  only  represent  the  transition  from  the  old-fashioned  labor  move- 
ment, such  as  it  was  from  1871  to  1914,  which  rendered  inestimable  services  to  the 
proletariat  through  its  slow,  continued,  systematic  work  of  organization  in  a  large, 
very  large  field,  to  the  new  movement  which  was  objectively  necessary  at  the  time 
of  the  first  world-wide  war  of  Imperialism,  and  which  has  inaugurated  the  social- 
revolutionary  era." 


88  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

super-science,  unaffected  by  the  conditions  which  af- 
fect bourgeois  science.  The  illusion  has  an  apparently 
materialistic  basis.  The  doctrinaire  Socialist  assumes 
that  there  are  no  divisions  within  the  proletariat,  its 
interests  being  one;  and  that,  accordingly,  Socialist 
theory  possesses  a  unity  of  thought  impervious  to  re- 
actionary influences.  But  the  assumption  is  not  valid. 
The  immediate  interests  of  the  working  class  are  not 
one — although  they  are,  ultimately;  it  is  split  by  divi- 
sions— between  the  skilled  and  the  unskilled;  and 
Socialist  theory  is  not  only  susceptible  of  reactionary 
interpretation,  but  was  used  for  reactionary  purposes. 
Skilled  labor  was  the  reactionary  factor,  aided  and 
abetted  by  the  lower  layers  of  the  bourgeoisie — two 
groups  which  psychologically  approach  each  other,  in 
the  measure  that  capitalist  development  raises  one  and 
lowers  the  other.  The  actual  practice  of  the  dominant 
Socialism  produced  Revisionism  in  Germany  and 
Ministerialism  in  France,  the  softening  of  class  antag- 
onisms, the  open  or  covert  policy  of  bringing  Social- 
ism by  the  co-operation  of  classes.  It  also  produced 
violent  tactical  differences,  in  .which  pseudo-Marxism 
actively  and  consistently  discouraged  and  rejected 
new  revolutionary  practices;  instead  of  appreciating 
the  significance  of  new  developments  in  class  relations 
and  tactics,  it  used  these  developments  to  bolster  up 
its  pseudo-Marxism,  to  maintain  the  status  quo  which 
allowed  the  opportunists  and  moderates  to  direct  the 
movement  straight  to  disaster.  In  the  hands  of  these 


SOCIALISM  IN  ACTION  89 

pseudo-Marxists,  Marxism  was  perverted  into  a  reac- 
tionary system.  In  our  coming  revolutionary  strug- 
gles, says  Anton  Pannekoek,  Marxism  will  be  our 
weapon:  "Marxism,  regarded  by  the  theoreticians 
of  Socialism  as  the  method  to  explain  the  past  and  the 
present  and  in  their  hands  degraded  into  a  dry  doc- 
trine of  mechanical  fatalism,  again  is  to  come  into  its 
birth-right  as  a  theory  of  revolutionary  action."  Marx 
himself  said  of  the  pseudo-Marxists:  "I  sowed  dra- 
gons' teeth  and  I  reaped  fleas." 

The  acute  tactical  disputes  of  Socialism  were  gen- 
eral. The  controversy  in  the  American  movement 
over  direct  action  and  political  action,  I.  W.  W.  and 
A.  F.  of  L.,  was  an  expression  of  the  conflict  between 
skilled  and  unskilled,  between  the  proletarian  and  the 
petty  bourgeois,  the  early  expression  of  that  great  up- 
heaval which  is  coming  in  American  Socialism,  and 
which  alone  can  make  Socialism  vital  and  vitalizing. 
The  controversy  was  complicated  by  the  fact,  that  the 
American  Socialist  Party  was  peculiarly  affected  by 
the  conditions  of  reaction.  In  Germany,  Social-De- 
mocracy had  a  material  basis  and  an  ideology  of  its 
own,  compounded  of  the  liberal  aspirations  of  the  Bis- 
marck era  and  skilled  labor,  which  because  of  histor- 
ical conditions  lined  up  with  the  Social-Democracy. 
But  in  this  country,  and  this  explains  the  stunted 
growth  of  American  Socialism  even  in  its  petty  op- 
portunist phase,  the  party  had  no  material  basis  and 
ideology  of  its  own.  It  imported  these  from  Europe. 


90  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

Skilled  labor,  organized  in  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  had  deter- 
mined upon  its  policy  prior  to  the  time  it  might  have 
been  influenced  by  Socialism,  and  all  attempts  of  the 
Socialist  Party  to  "capture"  the  unions  failed  miser- 
ably: the  party  adapted  itself  to  the  craft  unions,  but 
these  unions  as  a  whole  would  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  party.  The  middle  class  acted  through  its  own 
movements,  and  supported  the  Socialist  party  only 
sporadically  and  in  a  small  way.  The  party  did  not 
sense  the  task  of  expressing  the  unskilled,  of  adapting 
itself  to  the  new  conditions  which  everywhere  were  de- 
veloping, and  which  were  largely  dominant  in  the 
United  States.  The  development  of  "internal"  Im- 
perialism affected  the  alteration  of  class  groupings 
and  the  expression  of  class  interests  early  and  defin- 
itely; the  party  did  not  appreciate  this  circumstance; 
and  the  Socialist  Party  became  a  sort  of  Mahomet's 
coffin  suspended  between  heaven  and  earth.  The 
American  party  is  the  most  miserable  failure  of  the 
Second  International,  measuring  its  success  either  in 
practical  or  theoretical  achievements.  It  had,  and 
has,  all  the  vices  and  none  of  the  virtues  of  the  Euro- 
pean movement.  It  is  not  a  representative  of  the  revo- 
lutionary proletariat;  nor  is  it  honestly  even  a  repre- 
sentative of  skilled  labor  and  the  small  bourgeoisie: 
it  simply  tries  to  represent  these  groups. 

Under  the  petty  bourgeois  conditions  in  which  it 
/was  operating,  Socialism  became  necessarily  and  es- 
sentially a  parliamentary  movement.     The  state  was 


91 

the  center  of  Socialist  activity.  Legislation  was  con- 
ceived  as  more  determinant  than  action  of  the  pro- 
letariat, laws  more  dynamic  than  proletarian  class 
power.  This  activity,  naturally,  increased  the  func-J/ 
tions  and  power  of  the  state ;  the  state,  under  the  im- 
petus of  Imperialism,  intensified  its  tyranny  and  bru- 
tality against  the  workers;  and  the  answer  to  this  of 
Socialist  parliamentarians  was — more  laws,  and  more 
power  to  the  state!  As  governments  entered  the  orbit 
of  Imperialism  and  State  Capitalism,  the  necessity 
arose  of  a  struggle  against  the  state  through  the  cre- 
ative mass  action  of  the  proletariat.  The  necessity 
was  slighted;  instead  of  seeing  parliamentarism  in  its 
true  proportions,  parliamentarism  became  more  of  a 
fetish  as  it  became  more  impotent.  Socialism,  in  fact^ 
was  now  a  part  of  the  government,  a  prop  of  the  state, 
a  conservative  and  conserving  factor  in  the  ruling  sys- 
tem of  things.3 

Having  become  a  national  liberal  movement  of 
social  reform,  and  a  part  of  the  state,  Socialism 
adopted  the  national  ideal  and  submerged  the  inter- 
national. In  the  measure  that  the  dominant  Socialism' 
softened  its  antagonism  to  the  governing  system  of 

3.  Socialism  grew  into  the  state,  not  the  socialist  state  of  the  future,  but  into 
the  capitalistic  state  of  the  present.  It  became  a  part  of  this  state.  It  strengthened 
its  own  position,  but  in  doing  so  it  strengthened  also  the  state  of  which  it  formed  a 
part.  It  aided  the  capitalist  governments  in  so  developing  their  powers  that  they 
could  finally  extend  their  activities  beyond  their  own  boundaries.  Indirectly,  then. 
Socialism  aided  in  creating  the  very  forces  which  have  brought  on  the  present  war. 
Social  Democracy  ceased  to  be  an  organization  of  those  without  a  country  and 
became  a  party  of  valued  citizens  whose  constructive  co-operation  was  useful  to  the 
government  and  is  now  especially  essential  at  a  time  when  this  government  could 
hardly  achieve  its  purposes  without  the  help  of  the  Socialists. — Heinrich  Laufcnberg 
and  Fritz  Wolfheim,  The  Old  International  and  the  New.  (This  pamphlet  waa 
published  in  1915,  and  is  an  expression  of  a  revolutionary  Socialist  group  in  Germany.) 


92  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

things  and  merged  into  that  system,  it  drew  further 
away  from  the  militant  proletariat  and  from  the 
Socialism  of  other  nations.  There  being  nothing  virik 
and  revolutionary  in  its  policy  within  the  nation, 
Socialism  could  not  produce  a  virile  and  revolution- 
ary international  policy.  The  Socialist  movement, 
operating  in  an  epoch  of  national  development,  had 
become  nationalistic,  and  its  nationalistic  bias  per- 
sisted into  the  new  international  epoch  of  Imperial- 
ism; it  was  dominated  by  the  vague  democratic  na- 
tionalism of  a  preceding  era.  In  the  meanwhile,  the 
nation  developed  into  a  carrier  of  Imperialism,  dis- 
carding democratic  nationalism.  Socialism  went  out 
to  fight  for  the  democratic  nation,  and  lo  and  behold! 
— Imperialism  claimed  it  for  its  own,  as  the  nation 
was  now  imperialistic.  The  catastrophe  of  the  Social- 
ist collapse  in  the  crisis  of  war  flowed  equally  from 
the  circumstance  that  neither  nationally  nor  interna- 
tionally had  Socialism  adapted  itself  to  the  conditions 
and  requirements  of  the  era  of  Imperialism.  Social- 
ism had  itself  become  a  fetter  upon  the  revolutionary 
development  of  the  proletariat. 


VII 
THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE 

THE  test  of  war  during  the  fatal  days  of  August, 
1914,  found  the  dominant  Socialism  in  Europe  cor- 
rupted by  the  ideology  of  national  liberal  ideals. 
Democracy  and  the  nation  were  conceived  as  synony- 
mous terms:  German  Socialism  declared  that  Czaristic 
Russia  menaced  the  democracy  of  Germany,  while  the 
Socialism  of  Great  Britain  and  France  declared  that 
Germany's  autocracy  menaced  the  democracy  of  the 
world.  This  ideology  of  national  democracy  and  the 
defense  of  democracy  through  the  nation  persisted 
as  a  heritage  from  the  days  when  democratic  revolu- 
tions were  national  revolutions,  and  the  nation  was 
the  carrier  of  democracy — of  bourgeois  democracy. 
But  even  in  these  revolutions  it  was  the  still  immature 
class  of  workers  that  forced  the  furthest  democratic 
advances;  and  to-day,  under  the  conditions  of  Im- 
perialism, the  proletarian  class  struggle  alone  is  the 
carrier  of  democracy,  of  the  proletarian  democracy 
which  is  the  only  alternative  to  Imperialism. 

An  ideology,  however,  develops  out  of  material 

93 


94  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

conditions  and  the  material  conditions  of  Imperialism 
produced  a  new  ideology,  the  ideology  of  conquest 
and  autocracy.  Socialism  still  clung  to  the  older  ide- 
ology, in  spite  of  new  material  conditions;  and,  more- 
over, while  the  phraseology  was  the  same,  it  had  come 
to  mean  different  things.  There  was  war,  the  nation 
was  assailed,  and  it  had  to  be  defended  as  the  carrier 
of  democracy,  but  Imperialism  had  altered  the  cir- 
cumstances and  the  purposes  of  the  nation.  Socialism 
marched  out  to  fight  for  the  nation,  but  it  was  an 
imperialistic  nation  and  an  imperialistic  war,  the 
most  brutal  and  shameless  war  in  all  history.  The 
voice  was  the  voice  of  the  democratic  Jacob,  but  the 
hand  was  the  hand  of  the  imperialistic  Esau.  And, 
moreover,  the  dominant  Socialism  had  itself  subtly 
become  imperialistic. 

It  is  misleading,  however,  to  maintain  that  organ- 
ized Socialism  collapsed  upon  the  declaration  of  war 
'and  its  failure  to  act  against  the  war.  Socialism  col- 
lapsed during  the  imperialistic  epoch  of  "armed 
peace"  that  preceeded  the  war;  the  collapse  in  August, 
1914,  was  the  symbol  of  a  development  that  marked 
the  transformation  of  Socialism  from  a  revolutionary 
and  revolutionizing  movement  into  a  conservative  and 
conserving  factor  in  the  governing  system  of  things. 
Socialism  had  collapsed  internally,  in  the  national 
struggle  against  Capitalism,  before  it  collapsed  in- 
ternationally: the  one  event  followed  fatedly  and 
tragically  upon  the  other.  Socialism  disintegrated  as 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  95 

a  revolutionary  force  during  the  days  of  peace  be- 
cause it  did  not  carry  on  the  aggressive  struggle 
against  imperialistic  Capitalism;  it  disintegrated  be- 
cause it  did  not  adapt  itself  to  the  requirements  of 
the  menace  of  war  internationally,  nor  to  the  altered 
class  relations  within  the  nation.  Moreover,  organ- i 
ized  Socialism  could  not  carry  on  the  aggressive  strug- 
gle against  Imperialism  as  it  was  constituted;  it  had 
first  to  transform  its  material  bases  and  its  official 
theory  of  State  Capitalism;  it  had  to  reorganize  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  altered  class  relations  and  forms 
of  expression  of  class  interests  of  Imperialism,  adopt 
a  new  set  of  tactics  and  a  new  program  of  purposes 
determined  by  the  new  revolutionary  epoch. 

The  fact  is  that,  prior  to  the  war,  organized  Social- 
ism as  a  social  force  had  merged  into  Imperialism, — 
a  "liberal"  and  "pacifist"  Imperialism  to  a  certain 
extent,  but  Imperialism  none  the  less.  The  dominant 
and  dominating  elements  in  the  Socialist  movement — 
skilled  labor,  the  small  bourgeoisie,  and  the  new  mid- 
dle class — had  already  been  seduced  by  Imperialism.1, 
They  were  not  definitely  aware  of  the  fact,  perhaps, 
because  of  an  ideology  no  longer  in  accord  with  actual 
conditions;  and  this  ideology  was  a  mighty  contri- 

1.  The  social-patriots  are  Socialists  in  word*  and  patriots  in  fact,  who  agree 
to  defend  their  fatherland  in  an  imperialistic  war,  and  particularly  this  imperialistic 
war.  These  men  are  our  class-enemies.  They  have  gone  over  to  the  bourgeois  camp. 
They  count  among  their  numbers  the  majority  of  Social  Democrats  in  every  na- 
tion ....  The  social-patriots  are  the  enemies  of  our  class,  they  are  bourgeois  in 
the  midst  of  the  labor  movement.  They  represent  layers  or  groups  of  the  working 
class  which  have  been  practically  bought  by  the  bourgeoisie,  through  better  wages, 
positions  of  honor,  etc.,  and  which  help  their  bourgeoisie  to  exploit  and  oppress 
smaller  and  weaker  nations,  and  to  take  part  in  the  division  of  capitalistic  spoils. 
— N.  Lenin,  Task  of  the  Proletariat  in  Our  Revolution,  Petrograd,  September  1917. 


96  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

buting  factor  in  the  great  collapse.  Social  reform, 
which  was  the  animating  purpose  of  the  movement, 
had  become  dependent  upon  the  spoils  of  Imperial- 
ism; the  institutions  of  the  nation,  in  which  Socialism 
was  an  integral  factor,  depended,  immediately,  upon 
the  success  of  the  nation  in  its  imperialistic  war.  Na- 
tionalistic Socialism  had  a  stake  in  the  nation,  im- 
perialistic Socialism  had  a  stake  in  an  imperialistic 
war. 

The  one  militant  force  which  might  have  been  mo- 
bilized in  the  revolutionary  struggle,  the  industrial 
power  of  the  proletariat  of  machine  labor,  which  alone 
may  act  internationally  because  of  its  material  con- 
ditions, was  slightly  if  at  all  represented  in  the  coun- 
cils and  proposals  of  Socialism.  Socialism,  accord- 
ingly, possessed  neither  the  material  basis  of  prole- 
tarian power  nor  the  ideology  of  revolutionary  action 
for  the  general  struggle  against  Imperialism  and  war. 
There  was  in  the  Socialist  movement  no  general  con- 
ception of  Imperialism  and  no  real  struggle  against 
its  menace,  except  among  a  small  minority  of  revolu- 
tionary Socialists  of  the  left. 

The  "armed  peace"  carried  the  threat  of  war,  and 
war  was  the  synthetic  expression  of  the  general  con- 
ditions of  Imperialism.  But  in  compromising  with 
forces  the  activity  of  which  generate  war,  Socialism 
inevitably  compromised  with  war  itself.  Its  policy^ 
against  war  was  a  policy  of  pacifism,  which  attacks 
war  but  allows  the  class  conditions  that  produce  war, 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  97 

to  persist.  The  Socialist  attack  upon  militarism,  ex- 
cept among  minor  groups,  proceeded  within  the  orbit 
of  pacifism  and  legality,  the  pacifism  of  the  small 
bourgoisie  and  its  psychological  reflex,  skilled  labor. 
The  compromise  with  militarism  became  general:  in 
Germany,  attested  by  voting  the  war  budget  in  1913  by 
the  parliamentary  Social  Democracy  under  the  cow- 
ardly and  characteristically  petty  bourgeois  pretext  of 
"equalizing"  taxation;  in  France  and  the  International 
generally,  by  not  emphasizing  the  campaign  against 
Imperialism  and  militarism,  or  adopting  the  policy 
of  pacifism  in  the  campaign. 

The  policy  on  war  and  militarism  of  the  dominant 
Socialism  was  as  petty  bourgeois  as  its  policy  on  other 
major  problems. 

Instead  of  a  revolutionary  attack  upon  Imperialism 
and  militarism  and  preparatious  to  prevent  war  or 
convert  it  into  a  civil  war  of  the  oppressed  against  the 
oppressors,  and  for  Socialism,  there  was  scheme  after 
scheme  proposed  to  evade  war.  The  theory  of  Social- 
ism made  it  visualize  clearly  the  menace  of  war;  its 
practice  and  animating  purposes  prevented  it  from 
offering  any  real  opposition  to  the  coming  of  war, 
and  none  to  war  itself.  Socialism  had  an  abiding 
horror  of  war — but  sentiments  are  not  a  substitute  for 
deeds;  and  this  horror  expressed  itself  while  simul- 
taneously pursuing  a  policy  that  promoted  the  com- 
ing of  war.  This  horror  of  war  the  dominant  Social- 
ism shared  with  the  petite  bourgeoisie  generally;  but 


98  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

this  bourgeoisie  allied  itself  with  an  Imperialism 
that  inexorably  produced  war.  Capitalism  itself,  as  a 
whole,  may  be  said  to  have  a  horror  of  war:  it  is  risky; 
but  still  it  pursues  a  policy  that  makes  for  war, — a 
state  of  things  particularly  apparent  in  France.2  The 
Dominant  Socialism  accepted  the  softening  of  class 
/antagonisms  through  collectivism  as  a  means  of 
(/'growing  into"  Socialism;  and  it  accepted  pacifism 
and  its  policy  of  gradually  softening  and  regulating 
national  antagonisms  as  the  means  to  general  peace. 
One  policy  is  related  to  the  other,  and  each  is  the 
consequence  of  relinquishing  the  general  revolution- 
ary struggle  against  Capitalism,  of  the  perversion  of 
revolutionary  Socialism.  .  .  .  And  through  the  years 
comes  the  bitter  sarcasm  of  Marx,  "I  sowed  dragons' 
teeth  and  I  reaped  fleas." 

It  was  a  national  set  of  circumstances  that  dictated 
this  policy  of  the  dominant  Socialism;  and  Socialism 
|  clung  to  its  nationalistic  bias  at  a  time  when  Capital- 
ism was  internationalizing  itself  through  Imperialism. 
The  coming  of  war  and  war  itself  can  be  effectively 
fought  only  by  subordinating  the  national  ideal  to  the 
international.  This  Socialism  did  not  accomplish. 
At  each  international  congress  proposals  for  interna- 
tional action  against  war  met  disaster  on  the  rocks  of 


2.  The  petit  bourgeois  sends  to  parliament  a  radical  who  has  promised  him  to 
preserve  peace  ....  This  radical — "pacifistic"  bloc  of  deputies  gives  birth  to  a 
radical  ministry,  which  at  once  finds  itself  bound  hand  and  foot  by  all  the  diplomatic 
and  military  obligations  and  financial  interests  of  the  French  bourse  in  Russia 
Africa  and  Asia.  Never  ceasing  to  pronounce  the  proper  pacifistic  sentences,  the 
ministry  and  parliament  automatically  continue  to  carry  on  a  world-policy  which 
involves  France  in  war. — Leon  Trotzky,  "Pacifism  in  the  Service  of  Imperialism," 
in  The  Class  Struggle  of  November-December  1917. 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  99 

the  national  ideology  dominating  every  Socialist 
party, — an  ideology,  moreover,  which  equally  pre- 
vented national  action  against  war.  Imperialism 
negated  nationalism,  while  using  it  in  its  service;  So- 
cialism emphasized  nationalism.  The  result  inevit- 
ably was  disaster,  a  catastrophic  collapse. 

Under    these    conditions,    Socialism    might    talk 
against  impending  war,  but  it  could  not  act.     In  the  j 
tragic  ten  days  of  July  it  did  talk,  furiously,  flam-  ' 
boyantly,  smugly,  but  it  never  acted;  it  never  con- 
sidered action,  satisfying  itself  with  the  pacifist  ac-, 
tivity  of  demonstration  and  denunciation. 

The  salient  feature  of  the  activity  of  dominant  So- 
cialism during  these  ten  days  was  a  dependence  upon 
forces  outside  itself  to  prevent  the  coming  of  war. 
The  Socialists  denounced  war;  they  held  demonstra- 
tions;  they   threatened   the   governments;   they   did 
everything,  in  short,  except  that  which  might  have 
produced  results:  definite,  determined  action  based'! 
upon  the  class  struggle  and  the  revolutionary  activity^ 
of  the  proletariat  itself. 

If  the  dominant  Socialism  had  been  revolutionary,, 
it  would  have  issued  a  declaration  of  distrust  in  all! 
governments,  actively  and  aggressively  opposed  the 
coming  of  war  by  deeds,  and  prepared  for  civil  war 
in  the  event  of  a  declaration  of  war.     Action  of  this, 
character  might  have  prevented  war — a  government 
would  hesitate  to  engage  in  war  without  the  support 
of  the  working  class.    But  even  if  it  did  not  prevent 


100  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

war,  it  would,  at  least,  have  beeen  a  gesture  worthy 
of  the  revolutionary  aspirations  of  Socialism;  more- 
over, and  still  more  important,  it  would  have  given 
Socialism  and  the  proletariat  a  strategic  and  tacti- 
cal advantage  over  the  governments  during  the  war, 
hastened  the  coming  of  peace  and  determined  the 
conditions  of  peace;  and,  considering  the  Russian 
Revolution  and  the  crisis  precipitated  by  the  revolu- 
tionary dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  in  Russia,  it 
would  have  meant  international  action  for  the  Social 
Revolution  in  Europe.  But  the  dependence  upon 
everything  except  the  mass  action  of  the  proletariat, 
was  fatal.  Socialism  was  demoralized,  corrupted, 
palsied  except  for  evil,  and  the  proletariat  was  curbed 
in  its  potential  action. 

The  task  of  organizing  action  against  an  impending 
war  in  the  form  of  an  international  General  Strike 
was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  International  Socialist 
Bureau  by  the  Stuttgart  Congress  in  1907.  The  Bu- 
reau, meeting  July  20,  1914,  at  Brussels,  adopted  a 
resolution  of  which  two  paragraphs  are  significant: 

"The  Bureau  considers  it  an  obligation  for  the 
workers  of  all  nations  concerned  not  only  to  continue 
but  even  to  strengthen  their  demonstrations  against 
war  in  favor  of  peace,  and  a  settlement  of  the  Austro- 
Servian  conflict  by  arbitration. 

"The  German  and  French  workers  will  bring  to 
bear  on  their  governments  the  most  vigorous  pressure 
in  order  that  Germany  may  secure  in  Austria  a  moder- 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  101 

ating  action,  and  in  order  that  France  may  obtain 
from  Russia  an  undertaking  that  she  will  not  engage 
in  the  conflict.  On  their  sides  the  workers  of  Great 
Britain  and  Italy  shall  sustain  these  efforts  with  all 
the  power  at  their  command." 

The  only  indication  of  the  General  Strike  in  the 
activity  of  the  Bureau  was  in  a  resolution  "congratu- 
lating" the  workers  of  Russia  "on  their  revolutionary 
attitude"  [a  big  General  Strike  was  on  in  Russia]  and 
inviting  them  "to  continue  their  heroic  efforts  against 
Czarism  as  one  of  the  most  effective  guarantees  against 
the  threatened  world  war."  But  if  a  General  Strike 
in  Russia,  not  directed  primarily  against  the  war  and 
affecting  only  some  hundreds  of  thousands  of  workers, 
was  "one  of  the  most  effective  guarantees  against  the 
threatened  world  war,"  why  did  not  the  Bureau  try 
to  multiply  this  effectiveness  by  issuing  a  call  for 
similar  strikes  in  Germany  and  France  against  the 
war?  It  is  clear  why  this  was  not  done,  because  the 
dominant  Socialism  was  not  against  the  war  in  a  rev- 
olutionary sense,  if  actually  at  all;  it  was  against  the 
war  only  in  the  sense  of  bourgeois  pacifism,  with  the 
gangrene  of  a  national  ideology  eating  away  at  its 
vitals.  Moreover,  there  was  already  talk  of  the  de- 
fense of  democracy  and  the  nation,  talk  of  this  or  that 
nation,  always  never  one's  own  nation,  being  the 
aggressor;  there  was  no  international  unity  during 


102  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

the  crisis  because  there  had  not  been  any  during  the 
period  proceeding.3 

The  dominant  spirit  at  the  great  anti-war  demon- 
stration in  Brussels,  July  29,  was  one  of  impotent 
threatening  and  confidence  in  one's  own  government. 
Emile  Vandervelde  spoke;  so  did  Jean  Jaures  and 
Hugo  Haase.  Haase  held  up  the  spectre  of  revolu- 
tion— as  if,  not  being  backed  up  by  definite,  organ- 
ized, aggressive  action,  it  could  frighten  the  govern- 
ments; and  the  threat  was  still  further  invalidated  by 
Haase's  statement  that  the  German  government  was 
working  for  peace!  Jaures  said  that  the  French  gov- 
ernment, in  co-operation  with  the  "admirable"  Eng- 
lish government,  was  pursuing  a  policy  of  peace. 

This  was  an  attitude  fraught  with  danger.  The 
policy  of  peace  a  bourgeois  government  may  pursue 
is  circumscribed  within  the  definite  limits  of  ruling 
class  interests ;  moreover,  Jaures'  and  Haase's  attitude 
converted  the  possibility  of  proletarian  acquiescence 
in  the  war  into  a  certainty  by  developing  confidence 
in  the  governments,  which  under  all  circumstances 
should  be  distrusted.  France  desired  peace,  but  yet 
it  was  clear  she  would  stand  by  Russia  in  the  event 
of  war;  the  imperialistic  stakes  were  too  immense. 
In  this  emergency,  revolutionary  Socialist  action  was 
indispensable  and  alone  consistent, — unambiguous 


3.  The  question  hoto  the  war  could  be  resisted  was  never  even  raised,  became 
the  question  whether  tho  war  ought  to  be  resisted  was  not  even  answered  with  a 
decisive  Yes. — Anton  Pannekoek,  "Imperialism  and  Social  Democracy,"  International 
Socialist  Review,  October,  1914. 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  103 

formulation  of  a  policy  directed  against  governments 
through  strikes  and  general  mass  action.  The  good 
intentions  of  governments  are  as  a  reed, — and  the 
revolutionist,  of  all  people,  should  know  it.  The 
Social  Democracy  of  Germany  not  only  did  not  organ- 
ize resistance  against  the  government  and  the  coming 
of  war,  but  was  already  preparing  to  participate  in  the 
war:  this  was  the  hideous  fact  underneath  all  the 
grandiloquent_phrases.  The  Berlin  Vorwaerts,  in  the 
early  days,  made  more  than  one  threat  of  revolution, 
and  it  tore  to  shreds  the  claim  of  a  war  of  democ- 
racy against  Czarism.  But  its  editorial  of  July  28 
concluded:  "They  [the  peoples  of  Europe]  demand 
from  their  governments  intervention  against  this  polit- 
cal  madness.  They  demand  unambiguous  representa- 
tions in  Vienna,  in  Berlin,  in  St.  Petersburg."  On 
August  1  the  Vorwaerts  pleaded  that  "there  is  still 
time  for  negotiations."  But  war  was  declared,  and 
then  came  Socialist  acquiescence  in  the  infamy  of  an 
accomplished  fact. 

The  policy  and  action  described  are  typical  of  bour- 
geois pacifism  generally — first  denunciation  and 
threats  hurled  at  the  government,  then  pleadings  ad- 
dressed to  that  same  government,  and  then  acquies- 
cence in  and  acceptance  of  the  acts  of  the  govern- 
ments.4 


4.  In  spite  of  its  declaration  against  the  war,  the  American  Socialist  party  has 
pursued  a  similar  policy — the  ideas  of  its  dominant  personnel  are  identical  with 
the  social-pacifists  and  social-patriots  in  the  European  movement.  The  resolutions 
and  declarations  of  the  National  Executive  Committee  since  August  1914  are  instinct 
with  the  spirit  of  bourgeois  pacifism.  The  party  bureaucracy  allied  itself  with  the 


104  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

All  through  the  crisis  action  was  never  proposed  or 
pusued  by  the  dominant  Socialism;  action  was  left  to 
the  governments.  The  governments  acted  for  war; 
and  then  Socialism  equally  acted  for  war  and  justi- 
fied the  war,  mobilized  the  masses  for  the  war,  there- 
by completely  crushing  the  possibility  of  proletarian 
action, — except  among  minor  groups  and  the  intrepid 
Socialist  Party  of  Italy. 

The  indictment  against  the  dominant  Socialism 
does  not  depend  upon  its  failure  to  prevent  the  war: 
Socialism  might  not  prevent  a  war,  and  still  retain  its 
integrity  and  revolutionary  honor,  prepared  to  act  on 
the  basis  of  the  class  struggle  at  the  earliest  oppor- 

"radical"  pacifists,  abandoned  the  class  struggle,  and  confused  the  whole  issue  of 
war  and  peace.  The  Resolution  against  war  adopted  at  the  St.  Louis  Convention 
is  largely  contradictory  and  insincere:  it  means  all  things  to  all  men.  To  be  sure, 
the  radical  part  of  the  delegates  forced  certain  revolutionary  declarations  into  the 
Resolution;  but  these  have  been  repeatedly  violated  and  abandoned  by  the  party 
bureaucracy.  Morris  Hillquit,  under  pressure,  accepted  these  declarations;  and 
after  the  Convention  proceeded  to  explain  them  away.  The  climax  of  his  opportunist 
policy  was  his  answer  to  the  question  put  to  him  by  William  Hard  whether,  if  he 
had  been  a  member  of  Congress,  he  would  have  voted  in  favor  of  war.  Hillquit 
answered  (New  Republic  December  1,  1917,  reprinted  in  the  New  York  Call  of 
December  5)  :  "If  I  bad  believed  that  our  participation  would  shorten  the  world-war 
and  force  a  better,  more  democratic  and  more  durable  peace,  I  should  have  favored 
the  measure,  regardless  of  the  cost  and  sacrifices  of  America.  My  opposition  to  our 
entry  into  the  war  was  based  upon  the  conviction  that  it  would  prolong  the  disastrous 
conflict  without  compensating  gains  to  humanity,"  That's  all! — a  complete  abandon- 
ment and  repudiation  of  the  St.  Louis  Resolution,  a  policy  of  the  worst  bourgeois 
pacifism.  Moreover,  the  officials  of  the  party,  and  through  them  the  party,  became 
allied  with  the  People's  Council,  a  typical  product  of  bourgeois  pacifism.  The  People's 
Council,  and  through  it  the  official  bureaucracy  of  the  Socialist  Party,  destroyed  the 
peace  movement,  mobilized  the  ideology  of  the  masses  for  the  war  by  declaring 
President  Wilson  had  adopted  its  terms  of  peace.  Meyer  London,  the  party's  repre- 
sentative in  Congress,  admirably  performed  the  function  of  a  lackey  of  Imperialism 
disguised  by  a  bland  hypocrisy  of  words  and  deeds.  When  the  proletarian  revolution 
in  Russia  swept  into  power,  the  party  officially  was  silent,  while  the  New  York  Call 
confessed  an  ignorance  bordering  on  intellectual  bankruptcy  and  an  infamous  pal- 
liation of  its  petty  bourgeois  soul.  The  party  was  silent  on  the  Russian  proposal 
for  an  armistice;  it  was  silent  on  the  peace  policy  of  the  proletarian  revolution,  and 
after  President  Wilson  spoke  nice  words  about  the  Russians,  the  National  Executive 
Committee  adopted  a  resolution  presumably  in  line  with  the  policy  of  revolutionary 
Russia,  but  actually  nothing  of  the  sort.  Moreover,  the  official  leaders  of  the  party 
openly  or  covertly  justify  the  policy  of  majority  Socialism  in  Europe;  and  they 
will  after  the  war  in  all  probability  agree  with  Scheidemann,  Thomas  4  Co.,  on  the 
theory  that  the  social-patriots  engaged  in  a  "defensive"  war.  The  party  membership 
on  the  whole  revealed  a  fine  integrity  and  instinctive  class  consciousness,  but  it  was 
baffled  by  the  party  bureaucracy,  which  divided  into  adherents  of  the  war  and  ad- 
herents of  a  policy  of  conciliation  and  pacifism. 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  105 

tunity.  The  American  representatives  of  opportun- 
ist Socialism,  together  with  their  recognized  leader, 
Morris  Hillquit,  argue  that  there  was  no  collapse  of 
the  International  because  Socialism  could  not  prevent 
the  war.  Admitting  the  premises,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  dominant  Socialism  did  not  really  try  to  pre- 
vent war,  was  not  the  general  justification  of  the  war 
by  the  dominant  Socialism,  and  manufacturing  its 
ideology,  a  collapse  of  the  International?  The 
stain  upon  the  dominant  Socialism  of  Europe,  par- 
ticularly of  Germany  and  Austria,  is  that  it  used  all 
its  efforts  to  make  an  imperialistic  war  popular  with 
the  workers;  it  adopted  the  arguments  of  the  imperial- 
istic governments;  it  consciously  mobilized  the  prole- 
tariat for  slaughter  in  an  imperialistic  war.  This  is 
the  real  collapse,  and  the  sophistry  and  hypocrisy, 
the  dishonest  "explanations"  of  the  moderate  Social- 
ist explain  nothing,  except  their  own  petty  bourgeois 
ideals  and  revolutionary  cowardice. 

During  the  war,  the  dominant  Socialism  struck  a 
truce  with  the  ruling  class — "burgfrieden"  in  Ger- 
many, the  "union  sacre"  in  France.  Socialism  "sus- 
pended" the  class  struggle,  relinquishing  the  final 
measure  of  its  independence,  and  developed  into  an 
agency  of  the  governments,  acting  with  the  turjjilude 
of  a  moral  pervert  and  the  insolence  of  a  gutter  strum- 
pet. The  proletariat  was  offered  as  a  sacrifice  upon 
the  altar  of  Mars  by  the  very  movement  that  pre- 
viously offered  it  emancipation.  The  dominant  So- 


106  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

cialism  manufactured  an  ideology  for  the  war  more 
subtle,  more  dangerous;  more  calculated  to  betray 
the  proletariat  to  its  class  enemy,  than  all  the  acts 
and  propaganda  of  the  governments. 

The  official  majority  Socialists  of  Germany,  di- 
rected by  the  infamous  Scheidemann,  became  the  con- 
fidantes of  the  government  and  its  comis  voyapeurs: 
they  went  to  Belgium  to  "explain"  to  the  Socialists 
that  Germany  could  not  have  acted  otherwise  than 
by  violating  Belgium;  they  went  to  Italy  to  seduce 
the  Socialist  Party  to  advocate  Italy's  entrance  into 
the  war  on  the  side  of  Germany,  but  were  contemptu- 
ously rejected  and  bastinadoed.  Jules  Guesde — yes, 
the  revolutionary  Jules  Guesde  of  yester-year — 
urged  Italy  to  war  in  the  cause  of  democracy;  and 
Guesde,  Albert  Thomas  and  the  majority  in  the  French 
party  developed  into  uncompromising  adherents  of 
"war  to  the  finish,"  come  what  might.  The  Socialist 
majority  became  an  active  force  in  suppressing  po- 
tential proletarian  revolt;  it  generally  acquiesced  in 
the  most  brutal  acts  of  the  governments.  When  the 
German  proletariat  prepared  great  strikes  and  dem- 
onstrations for  May  Day,  1917,  the  Vorwaerts  car- 
ried on  a  propaganda  against  the  plans,  aided  and 
abetted  by  the  party  bureaucracy.  Civil  peace  was 
maintained  by  Socialism,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
Capitalism  repeatedly  violated  the  peace  in  its  own 
sinister  interests.  The  Russian  Revolution,  particu- 
larly when  it  definitely  developed  into  a  proletarian 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  107 

revolution,  sent  a  thrill  of  energy  and  enthusiasm 
through  the  proletariat  of  Europe,  but  it  could  not 
immediately  break  the  shackles  imposed  upon  it 
by  the  dominant  Socialism,  which  used  all  its  power 
to  prevent  a  revolutionary  uprising.  The  French  par- 
liamentary Socialists  answered  the  call  to  action  of 
the  revolutionary  proletariat  of  Russia  by  the  petty 
bourgeois  appeal  for  the  Revolution  to  align  itself 
with  the  Allies, — in  the  words  of  Guesde — "first  vic- 
tory, and  then  the  republic."  The  great  strikes  and 
demonstrations  of  January  and  Febraury,  1918,  in 
Austria  and  Germany,  were  broken  by  the  antagonism 
of  the  dominant  Socialism  and  the  imperialistic  regu- 
lar unions  of  skilled  labor;  while  the  Vorwaerts  de- 
clared that  it  didn't  want  a  revolution,  but  simply  that 
the  government  should  "mediate"  the  differences  be- 
tween it  and  the  proletariat. 

During  the  war,  dominant  Socialism  acted  as  the 
governments  acted;  a  volte  face  on  the  part  of  the 
governments  usually  produced  the  same  result  among 
the  representatives  of  the  petit_bourgeois.  Socialists, 
who  indulged  in  contemptible  intrigues  in  the  interest 
of  their  particular  imperialistic  government.  The  at- 
tempt to  convene  a  Socialist  Congress  for  peace  at 
Stockholm  in  1917  was  vitiated  by  the  dominant  So- 
cialism of  the  Allies  and  turned  into  a  miserable  pro- 
German  intrigue  by  the  cohorts  of  Scheidemann  and 
Victor  Adler.  The  dominant  Socialism  entered  the 
active  service  of  Imperialism,  becoming  its  most  val- 


108  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

ued  ally  where  it  should  have  been  its  worst  enemy. 

The  class  struggle  is  fundamental.  Divested  of  jhe 
class  struggle,  Socialism  becomes  either  utopia^-or 
reaction.  But  events  are  instinct  with  a  fatal  logic: 
the  process  of  softening  class  antagonisms  and_  divi- 
sions during  peace  inevitably  generates  the  complete 
abandonment  of  the  class  struggle  during  war.  ^he 
cycle  of  collapse  is  completed.  Jtjs^dkmng  war  that 
the  class  struggle  should  reach  its  maximum  intensity: 
all  the  conditions  of  multiplied  oppression  and  ex 
ploitation  are  a  call  to  carry  on  the  class  struggle. 
War  does  not  change  the  issue,  but  emphasizes  it:  the 
class  struggle  against  Capitalism.5 

Each  and  every  abandonment  of  the  class  struggle 


5.  To  the  great  historic  appeal  of  the  Communist  Manifesto  is  added  an  im- 
portant amendment  and  it  reads  now,  according  to  this  revision :  "Workers  of  the 
world  unite  in  peace  and  cut  one  another's  throats  in  war!"  Today,  "Down  with 
t!ie  Russians  and  French!" — tomorrow,  "We  are  brothers  all!"  This  convenient 
theory  introduces  an  entirely  novel  revision  of  the  economic  interpretation  of 
history.  Proletarian  tactics  before  the  outbreak  of  war  and  after  must  be  based  on 
exactly  opposite  principles.  This  pre-supposes  that  social  conditions,  the  bases  of 
our  tactics,  are  fundamentally  different  in  war  from  what  they  are  in  peace.  Ac- 
cording to  the  economic  interpretation  of  history  as  Marx  established  it,  all  history 
is  the  history  of  class  struggles.  According  to  the  new  revision,  we  must  add : 
except  in  times  of  war.  Now  human  development  has  been  periodically  marked  by 
wars.  Therefore,  according  to  this  new  theory  [advocated  by  Karl  Kautsky,  the 
liarmonizer  par  excellence  of  bourgeois  Socialist  practices  with  pseudo-Marxian  theory] 
social  development  has  gone  on  according  to  the  following  formula :  a  period  of 
class  struggles,  marked  by  class  solidarity  and  conflicts  within  the  nations ;  then  a 
period  of  national  solidarity  and  international  conflicts — and  so  on  indefinitely. 
Periodically  the  foundations  of  social  life  as  they  exist  during  peace  change  in  time 
of  war.  And  again,  at  the  moment  of  the  signing  of  a  treaty  of  peace,  they  are 
restored.  This  is  not,  evidently,  progress  by  means  of  successive  "catastrophes;" 
it  is  rather  progress  by  means  of  a  series  of  somersaults.  Society  develops,  we  are 
to  suppose,  like  an  iceberg  floating  down  a  warm  current;  its  lower  portion  is 
melted  away,  it  turns  over,  and  continues  this  process  indefinitely.  Now  all  the 
known  facts  of  human  history  run  straight  counter  to  this  new  theory.  They  show 
that  there  is  a  necessary  and  dialectic  relation  between  the  class  struggle  and  war. 
The  class  struggle  develops  into  war  and  war  develops  into  the  class  struggle;  and 
thus  their  essential  unity  is  proved.  It  was  so  in  the  medieval  cities,  in  the  wars 
of  the  Reformation,  in  the  Flemish  wars  of  liberation,  in  the  French  Revolution,  in 
the  American  Rebellion,  in  the  Paris  Commune,  and  in  the  Russian  uprising  in  1905. 
[And  in  Russia,  again  in  1917.] — Rosa  Luxemburg,  "The  Class  Struggle  During  War," 
in  The  International  (1915),  a  magazine  started  by  Rosa  Luxenburg  and  Franz 
Mehring,  and  suppressed  by  the  German  government  after  the  appearance  of  the  first 
issue.  (Reprinted  in  The  New  International  of  May  5,  1917.) 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  109 

is  a  step  away  from  Socialism.  The  nation  has  be- 
come imperialistic.  In  the  course  of  the  war,  accord- 
ingly, the  national  democratic  ideology  was  trans- 
formed by  large  groups  within  the  Socialist  move- 
ment, who  projected  an  imperialistic  ideology  and 
accepted  Imperialism  as  a  necessary  stage  to  Social- 
ism. Heinrich  Cunow,  one  of  the  intellectual  leaders 
of  the  German  Social  Democracy,  is  characteristic 
of  these  groups  in  his  theoretical  defense  of  Imperial- 
ism. Cunow  maintains  that  there  will  be  no  immedi- 
ate collapse  of  Capitalism  and  no  early  victory  of 
Socialism ;  that  illusions  arising  out  of  this  belief  are 
responsible  for  Socialist  disappointment  caused  by  the 
war.  Cunow  counsels  a  closer  scrutiny  of  the  actual 
course  of  development,  and  proceeds  to  a  defense  of 
Imperialism: 

"The  new  imperialistic  phase  of  development  is 
just  as  necessarily  a  result  of  the  innermost  condi- 
tions of  the  financial  existence  of  the  capitalist  class, 
is  just  as  necessary  a  transitional  stage  to  Socialism, 
as  the  previous  stages  of  development,  for  example, 
the  building  up  of  large  scale  industry.  .  .  .  The  de- 
mand, 'we  must  not  allow  Imperialism  to  rule,  we 
must  uproot  it,'  is  just  as  foolish  as  if  we  had  said  at 
the  beginning  of  machine  industry:  'no  machine  must 
be  tolerated,  let  us  destroy  them,  and  let  us  hence- 
forth allow  only  hand-work.' ' 

Cunow's  conclusion  is  legitimate  in  the  light  of 
the  petty  bourgeois,  reformist  activity  of  the  Social 


110  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

Democracy.  The  struggle  against  Imperialism  is 
futile  if  it  is  limited  within  the  orbit  of  Capitalism. 
But  Imperialism  is  the  climax  of  the  development  of 
Capitalism;  it  means  Capitalism,  fully  developed, 
trying  to  break  through  the  national  ideology  and 
national  frontiers  in  a  desperate  effort  to  maintain 
its  ascendancy  by  conquering  new  fields  of  expansion; 
and  it  means,  accordingly,  Capitalism  initiating  an 
epoch  in  which  the  Social  Revolution  becomes  a  neces- 
sity and  a  fact.  The  struggle  against  Imperialism 
must  consist  of  the  revolutionary  strugggle  of  the 
class  conscious  proletariat  for  the  Social  Revolution. 
Imperialism  is  a  menace:  it  is  a  menace  to  the  old 
system  of  Capitalism  and  it  is  a  menace  to  the  oncom- 
ing system  of  communist  Socialism.  ^Imperialism  is 
the  desperate  attempt  of  Capitalism  to  maintain  its 
sagremaLCjrj_^ndLiLselSLlhe  world  afire  in  the  despejca- 
tion  of  its  struggles.  Capitalism  is  revolting  against 
the  fetters  imposed  by  its  own  contradictions,  through 
Imperialism ;  the  proletariat  must  respond  by  the  class 
strjigggle  against  Capitalism  and  Imperialism,  by  the 
Social  Revolution.  But  this  conclusion  and  necessity, 
clearly,  imply  a  struggle  of  the  oncoming  proletarian 
revolution  against  the  dominant  Socialism.  The  petty 
.—.  bourgeois,  reformistic  Socialism  rejects  the  struggle 
•  against  Imperialism  and  collapses  tactically  because 
/  it  is  itself  a  part  of  the  imperialistic  epoch;  it,  accord- 
ingly, accepts  Imperialism  as  a  necessary  stage  to 
Socialism,  meanwhile  clownishly  crying  that  it  is  all 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  111 

in  accord  with  revolutionary  Marxism,  that  the  in- 
evitable collapse  of  Capitalism  is  coming,  anyhow: 
"God's  in  his  heaven,  all's  right  with  the  world." 
The  sins  of  Imperialism  are  washed  clean  in  the  holy 
water  of  pseudo-Marxian  theory. 

The  spirit  of  Cunow's  analysis,  moreover,  expresses 
a  dangerous  tendency  latent  in  pseudo-Marxian 
thought,  and  which  contributed  intellectually  to  the 
^reat  collapse.  It  is  what  may  be  termed  the  "his- 
torical imagination,"  the  tendency  to  view  contem- 
porary phenomena  as  one  views  the  phenomena  of 
history,  in  scholarly  retrospection.  This  necessarily 
leads  to  reactionary  concepts  and  paralysis  of  action. 
If  there  is  error  in  the  judgment  of  history,  hovr 
much  more  might  there  not  be  in  judging  history  in 
the  making?  Even  in  history  only  the  large,  general 
developments  can  be  considered  inevitable, — the 
broad  tendencies  of  social  evolution.  One  may  speak 
of  the  "inevitable"  this  and  the  "inevitable"  that  after 
the  event,  perhaps;  but  it  is  dangerous  to  do  so  before 
the  event.  And  particular]y-if-we-^ossess~an  insight 
inta^he  processes  of  hiMoTyT~foT~~of~what  practical 
value  is  this  insight  if  it  is  not  used  in  an  attempt, 
at~the  very  least,  to  direct  the  course  of  history? 

Cunow  sees  in  Imperialism  a  "necessary  transition- 
al stage  to  Socialism."  The  dominant  Social  Democ- 
racy of  Germany  seems  to  possess  real  genius  for  dis- 
covering "transitional  stages"  to  Socialism,  and  for 
emphasizing  any  and  all  things  except  the  revolution- 


112  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

ary  development  and  activity  of  the  proletariat  itself. 
A  generation  ago,  the  conquest  of  political  democracy 
was  considered  a  "necessary  transitional  stage"  to 
Socialism,  and  ended  in  making  the  Social  Democracy 
a  party  of  bourgeois  democracy  and  social  reform. 
Now  the  German  Socialist  majority  seems  to  have 
forgotten  this  particular  "transitional  stage"  and 
allies  itself  with  a  very  opposite  tendency,  Imperial- 
ism, the  arch-enemy  of  democracy.6  The  prattle  of 
'transitional  stages"  is  simply  a  palliation  of  the 
refusal  to  engage  in  the  revolutionary  struggle.  The 
imperialistic  German  government  decides  upon  a  cer- 
tain political  course,  and  then  calls  upon  the  historian 
and  the  philosopher  to  manufacture  the  intellectual 
justification;  the  German  Social  Democracy  decides 


6.  The  cross-currents  of  Socialist  thought  are  not  developed  clearly  in  the 
American  movement,  because  of  its  historical  conditions.  But  they  exist,  if  only  in 
latent  form.  John  Spargo,  William  English  Walling,  and  others,  including  their 
Social  Democratic  League,  adopted  completely  the  standpoint  of  the  most  reactionary 
social-patriots  of  Europe.  Ernest  Untermann,  in  a  series  of  articles  in  the  Mil- 
waukee Leader  during  1915,  accepted  and  applied  Cunow's  position.  In  the  course 
of  his  arguments,  Untermann  uses  a  phrase,  "Revolution  by  Reaction,"  which,  carica- 
ture as  it  is  and  because  it  is  caricature,  aptly  characterizes  the  Socialist-imperialist's 
attitude.  "Militarism,"  says  Untermana,  "and  colonial  Imperialism  today  seem  the 
worst  enemies  of  Democracy  and  Socialism,  yet  no  other  power  so  rapidly  and 
effectively  enforces  co-operative  discipline,  kills  anarchist  individualism,  destroys 
petty  business  enterprise  and  undermines  the  whole  capitalist  system  nationally  and 
internationally  so  thoroughly  as  these  arch-enemies  of  the  common  good  are  doing." 
According  to  Untermann,  "Our  American  imperialists,  like  their  European  brethren, 
must  work  for  the  revolution,  whether  they  like  it  or  not,"  and  he  favored  the  con- 
quest of  Mexico,  as  it  is  a  "perfervid  illusion"  to  hope  that  "American  interven- 
tion can  and  must  be  prevented:"  "Now  the  alternative  facing  the  American  capi- 
talists is:  either  a  constitutional  government  of  Mexicans  controlled  by  influences 
hostile  to  American  capitalists,  or  annexation  of  Mexico.  If  they  choose  annexation, 
they  will  give  to  the  Mexicans  with  one  hand  what  they  take  with  the  other.  For 
if  Mexico  is  annexed,  the  Mexican  people  lose  their  national  independence,  but  they 
gain — admission  to  the  American  labor  movement  and  the  American  Socialist  Party." 
Wonderful  gains — considering  the  reactionary  character  of  the  American  labor  move- 
ment and  Socialist  Party,  united  against  the  unskilled  workers  and  favoring  anti- 
immigration.  Untermann's  views  are  substantially  the  views  of  Victor  L.  Berger,  who 
advocated  editorially  in  the  Leader  the  conquest  of  Mexico,  and  who  is  a  social- 
imperialist  and  social-patriot  of  the  worst  type.  Moreover,  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  policy  of  the  American  Socialist  majority  during  peace  is  identical  with, 
if  a  caricature  of,  the  policy  pursued  by  the  European  Socialist  majority. 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  113 

to  adopt  a  non-Socialist  policy,  and  then  calls  upon 
the  pseudo-Marxist  to  harmonize  it  with  the  robust, 
revolutionary  philosophy  of  Marx. 

Imperialism  is  a  necessary  stage,  and  will  become 
a  permanent  stage  of  Capitalism,  if  the  Social  Revolu j  I  j 
tion  is  not  considered.  And  the  fight  against  Imperial*  I/ 
ism  is  a  dynamic  means  of  bringing  the  Social  Revo-) 
lution.  Should  Socialists  cease  their  opposition  to  the 
exploitation  of  labor  because  that  exploitation  is 
necessarily  a  result  of  Capitalism?  L^  Socialism  to~ 
become  the  historian,  analyzing  the  developments  of 
Capitalism,  instead  of  a  revolutionary  and  revolution* 
izing  factor  in  these  developments?  Is  the  Socialist 
movement  to  renounce  its  revolutionary  heritage  for 
the  flesh-pots  of  Imperialism?  In  fighting  Imperial- 
ism Socialism  doubly  fights  Capitalism;  in  abandon- 
ing the  fight  against  Imperialism  it  simultaneously 
and  necessarily  abandons  the  fight  against  Capitalism. 
For  Imperialism  is  nothing  but  an  acute  expression 
of  Capitalism,  a  symptom  that  it  is  rotten-ripe  for 
change.  The  development  of  machine  industry  was 
jan  expression  of  Capitalism  in  its  initial  stage;  Im- 
perialism is  an  expression  of  the  final  stage  of  Capi- 
talism, which  to-day  is  over-developed.  Capitalism 
seeks  through  Imperialism  a  means  of  avoiding  an  in- 
dustrial and  social  collapse.  The  maturity  of  indus- 
trial development  poses  the  problem — either  Impe- 
rialism or  Socialism.  Cunow  is  wrong,  there  is  an 
alternative  to  Imperialism,  and  that  is  Socialism, 


114  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

while  there  was  none  to  machine  industry.  The  an- 
swer of  Capitalism  to  the  impending  collapse  is  In> 
rialism  and  war;  die  answer  of  Socialism  can  only 

ie  and  must  be  the  Social  Revolution. . 

••  """ 

As  the  war  developed,  there  was  a  slight  recovery 
among  the  representatives  of  the  center,  typified  by 
the  majority  at  the  Zimmerwald_jGonf erence,  and 
which  in  Germany  led  to  the  formation  of  the  Inde- 
pendent Socialist  Party.  The  animating  spirit  of  this 
party, .  however,  was  the  old  pseudo-Marxism  which 
had  justified  the  conservatism  of  the  movement;  it 
still  expressed  the  facts  of  the  labor  and  Socialist 
movement  prior  to  the  war, — the  old  tactics,  the  old 
policy,  not  the  new  requirements  of  a  revolutionary 
epoch.  The  new  party  reverted  to  the  psychology  of 
the  past;  it  did  not  completely  sever  the  strings  that 
bound  it  to  petty  bourgeois,  reformistic  Socialism. 
The  Independent  Socialist  Party  waged  a  contempti- 
ble campaign  against  the  Bolsheviki.  Hugo  Haase 
declared  that  it  was  legitimate  to  vote  against  the 
war  credits,  because  there  was  not  a  foreign  soldier 
on  German  soil, — thereby  emphasizing  the  determina- 
tion of  the  French  Socialists  to  support  their  govern- 
ment, as  German  soldiers  were  on  their  soil. 

The  intellectual  genius  of  the  new  party  was  Karl 
Kautsky,  the  vacillator,  the  harmonizer,  the  man  who 
manufactured  one  theoretical  justification  after  an- 
other for  the  abandonment  of  Socialism  by  the  So- 
cial Democracy,  the  man  who  shortly  after  the  war 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  115 

broke  formulated  the  monstrous  doctrines  that  the 
International  was  an  instrument  during  peace,  but 
not  during  war,  and  that  all  Socialists  were  justified 
in  supporting  their  governments  as  under  the  condi- 
tions of  Imperialism  all  nations  were  on  the  defensive. 
The  Independent  Socialist  Party,  as  constituted,  is  a 
force  for  re-establishing  the  status  quo  ante, — a  ca- 
lamity that  revolutionary  Socialism  must  fight  against 
with  might  and  main.  These  representatives  of  the 
center  did  not  issue  a  call  to  revolutionary  action, 
they  did  not  measure  up  to  the  requirements  of  a  great 
historic  crisis.  The  old  phrases,  the  old  policy,  the 
old  tactics:  is  it  with  these  that  we  shall  revolutionize 
the  world?  The  dead  must  bury  their  dead.  The 
bulk  of  the  revolutionary  Socialists  of  Germany,  in- 
cluding Karl  Liebnecht,  Franz  Mehring,  Rosa  Luxem- 
burg and  Karl  Radek,  uncompromisingly  attacked 
the  new  party,  organizing  independently,  in  the  "Spar- 
tacus'"  group  and  the  group  "Internationale."  The// 
day  of  compromise  is  past  forever:  Socialism  must// 
completely  re-constitute  itself  as  an  uncompromising 
revolutionary  force  in  accord  with  the  tactical  necesF 
sity  of  the  new  epoch. 

The  old  Social  Democracy,  captained  by  Scheide- 
mann,  retained  possession  of  the  machinery  and  press 
of  the  party,  and  became  more  completely  identified 
with  the  capitalist  state,  more  completely  an  integral 
part  of  the  existing  system  of  things.  It  made  no 
bones  of  the  matter,  either.  Unblushingly,  insolently, 


116  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

it  placed  its  faith  in  the  might  of  the  German  nation, 
used  all  its  energy  for  a  victory  of  its  national  Im- 
perialism. The  emancipation  of  the  proletariat,  the 
Russian  Revolution,  the  future  of  the  world,  were  all 
meaningless  to  the  Social  Democracy,  all  simply  in- 
struments for  promoting  its  bourgeois  purposes  by 
means  of  a  brutal  Imperialism.  The  existing  sys- 
tem was  accepted  as  the  only  conceivable  basis  upon 
which  to  work;  this  system  should  be  modified,  per- 
haps; but  revolutionized — never!  The  state,  the  im- 
perialistic state  of  Capitalism,  was  the  centre  of  all 
activity,  and  the  action  of  the  Social  Democracy  was 
to  be  determined  by  the  state.  Socialism,  according 
to  the  new  dispensation,  was  no  longer  a  class  move- 
ment of  the  proletariat:  it  was  a  movement  of  all  the 
classes,  through  the  co-operation  of  which  alone  could 
Socialism  be  established.  It  was  precisely  this  pro- 
gram and  policy  that  the  British  Labor  Party  gradual- 
ly developed  under  the  pressure  of  war,  and  which 
it  clearly  formulated  in  January,  1918.  The  Labor 
Party  also  accepted  the  war,  and  promoted  the  war  by 
mobilizing  the  masses  through  the  slogan  of  democ- 
racy; it  became  a  part  of  the  state,  the  main-stay  of 
British  hopes  of  victory;  it  constituted  itself  a  party 
of  all  the  classes  by  opening  its  doors  to  "workers  of 
the  brain." 

The  Social  Democracy  was  now  definitely  and  com- 
pletely a  party  of  "laborism"  and  the  small  bour- 
geoisie, a  counter-revolutionary  partry  over  whose 


THE  GREAT  COLLAPSE  117 

prostrate  corpse  alone  the  proletariat  could  march 
to  victory.7 

The  Socialist-imperialist  and  social-patriot  gener-   ^  . 

ally  base  their  conception  of  "Socialism"  upon  the  *w 

development  of  Capitalism  in  itself;  the  revolutionary 
Socialist  bases  it  upon  the  class  development  of  tEe 
proletariat.  Capitalism  is  fully  developed;  the  pro- 
letariat must  develop  HJeTevoliiliunai  v  cuiisciousiiess 
and  action  for  its  historic  mission  of  overthrowing 
class  rule.  Socialism  cannot  "grow  into"  Capitalism, 
through  collectivism  and  the  co-operation  of  classes; 
Sojcialism  must  overthrow  Capitalism._  Instead  oF 
being  softened,  class  antagonisms  and  the  class  strug- 
gle  must  be  emphasized ;  instead  of  compromise  with 
Capitalism,  relentless  attack  upon  the  whole  capital- 


7.  The  Wuerzburg  Congress  of  the  Social  Democracy,  in  the  second  half  of 
1917,  formulated  the  new  policy  of  the  party.  The  delegates  were  in  complete  ac- 
cord wit!)  the  government  and  a  policy  of  social-imperialism;  the  general  sentiment 
was  that  it  is  about  time  to  put  an  end  to  "cloister  science,"  and  that  the  new 
program  should  be  puri6ed  of  the  "Marxist  scholastic."  Scheidemann  ushered  in 
the  new  dispensation  with  a  speech  characteristic  of  the  social-imperialist  policy. 
Among  other  things,  he  said:  "With  regard  to  tactics  we  have  become  more  flexible; 
because,  owing  to  the  war,  the  worker's  position  has  considerably  changed.  Imper- 
ialism was  forced  to  fight  its  battles  in  this  war  with  the  proletariat.  And  yet  the 
war  has  not  succeeded  in  strengthening  the  class  rule  of  the  bourgeoisie  over  the 
masses;  but  on  the  contrary  the  workers  have  everywhere  learned  that  the  state  for 
which  they  fight  will  after  the  war  be  less  than  ever  a  mere  class  enemy.  The 
working  class  is  not  any  more  an  amorphous  mass.  It  is  an  organized  body.  And 
there  are  a  thousand  reasons  why  tEe  organized  workers  cannot  oppose  themselves  to 
the  state.  This  they  have  nowhere  done.  If  organized  labor  fought  the  battles  for 
the  existence  of  the  state  it  did  not  in  the  least  intend  to  be  a  mere  cannon  fodder, 
and  everywhere  it  held  high  its  particular  ideals  and  class  objects.  The  proletariat 
is  not  a  mercenary  soldier  of  the  ruling  classes  but  an  ally  who  came  out  of  the 
need  of  the  moment,  who  at  the  end,  however,  will  present  his  bill."  And  this  is 
what  becomes  of  the  historic  mission  of  the  proletariat  to  overthrow  Capitalism — 
that  it  consciously  ally  itself  with  the  bourgeoisie  and  march  out,  for  the  purpose 
of  "presenting  its  bill,"  to  rape  Belgium,  devastate  France,  and  crush  the  Russian 
Revolution!  "The  most  interesting  point  in  Scheidemann's  speech,"  said  the  Berlin 
Vorwaerts,  "was  the  statement  that  the  socialization  of  society  can  not  be  brought 
about  through  the  exclusive  efforts  of  Social  Democracy.  The  solution  of  this 
great  task  awaits  the  aid  of  all  other  parties."  Oh,  yes — yes,  indeed.  And  the 
first  step  toward  this  peculiar  Socialism,  of  course,  is  to  destroy  Serbia,  subjugate 
Austria,  rape  Belgium,  devastate  France,  crush  the  Russian  Revolution,  justify  and 
promote  the  most  brutal  purposes  of  Imperialism, — and,  incidentally,  crush  the  on- 
coming proletarian  revolution  in  Germany. 


118  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

1st  regime  as  determined  by  the  conditions  of  Impe- 
rialism. 

The  issue  posed  by  the  great  collapse  is  this:  Shall 
Socialism  organize  dynamically  for  the  overthrow 
of  Capitalism,  or  shall  it  organize  for  the  perpetua- 
tion of  Capitalism  through  a  policy  of  national  social- 
Imperialism  and  State  Capitalism? 


VIII 
SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT. 


THE  process  of  Socialist  readjustment  depends,  im- 
mediately and  ultimately,  upon  readjustment  within 
the  nation;  it  must  start  with  the  reconstruction  of 
the  material  basis  of  the  movement  and  the  adoption 
of  revolutionary  purposes  and  tactics  in  the  national 
struggle  against  the  ruling  class.  This  internal  read- 
justment will  necessarily  express  itself  in  the  read- 
justment of  the  Socialist  International,  the  creation  of 
a  New  International  that  will  not  break  down  when 
the  call  comes  for  international  revolutionary  action, 
as  its  constituent  national  groups  will  have  adopted 
revolutionary  tactics  in  the  internal  struggle  against 
imperialistic  Capitalism.  The  attempt  to  reorganize 
the  International  of  Socialism  without  transforming 
its  constituent  national  groups  will  inevitably  mean 
a  new  collapse,  new  and  more  acute  disappointments. 
Socialism  collapsed  internationally  because  it  had  pre- 
viously collapsed  nationally;  revolutionary  action 

119 


120  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

within  the  nation  alone  can  impose  revolutionary 
action  upon  the  International  of  the  proletariat.  It  is 
a  general  process  of  reconstruction:  the  one  promotes 
the  other. 

The  struggle  against  Imperialism  is  the  starting 
point  of  this  readjustment,  the  factor  determining  our 
new  immediate  purposes  and  tactics,  which  must  break 
with  the  immediate  purposes  and  tactics  of  the  past. 
Under  the  conditions  of  the  new  era,  Socialism  either 
organizes  aggressively  against  Imperialism  and  for  the 
overthrow  of  the  capitalist  regime,  or  it  becomes  com- 
pletely submerged  in  social-Imperialism  and  reaction. 

The  new  conditions  require  an  abandonment  of  the 
ifallacyofj'growing  into"  Socialism, 


.nce  of  the  fact  that  revolutionary  struggle  alone  is 
ieUeterminant  factor-  Jn  Snr.i  a  1  i  st  policy^   The  revo- 
lution becomes,  not  an  aspiration  of  th 


an  Inspiration  instinct  in  the  immpfh'atp.  action  of  the 
proletariat.  The  proletariat  is  a  supremely  utilitarian 
class,  dominated  by  the  sense  of  reality;  and  through 
.this  reality  ofjictual  struggle  the  revolutionary  spirit 
has  to  express  itself.  The  self  consciousness  of  the 
mass  is  the  impulse  of  the  struggle,  thejreality  oT  its 
life  and  material  conditions  the  fulcrum  by  which  it  is 
moved  to  revolutionary  action.  The  proletarian  mass 
is  anim^edtiy^ie'entEusiasm  of  struggle,  rather  than 
by  the  ideal  ;  but  out  of  this  struggle  arises  the  ideal, 
for  the  conditions  of  its  activity  impose  a  revolution- 
ary expression.^  Struggle  succeeds  struggle,  becoming 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  121 

more  general,  more  centralized  and  national  in  scope, 
and  project  an  international  struggle  by  the  propul- 
sion of  the  activity  itself.     International  action  be- 
comes imperative.     The  dualism  in  Socialist  tactics 
disappears — there  is  no  political  action  alon^,  there  is 
no  industrial  action  alone,  but  one  unified  action :  the__ 
acceptance  and  merging  of  all  means  into  the  general 
revolutionary  action  of  the-  proletariat^    The  class 
struggle  becomes  more  conscious,  more  bitter  and  un- 
compromising, more  revolutionary  in  scope,  means 
and  aspirations.    Capitalism  meets  attack  after  attack, 
weakening  in  the  measure  that  the  proletariat  acquires 
the  consciousness  and  strength  developing  out  of  its 
struggles.     Capitalism  succumbs  not  to  an  ultimate. 
revolutionaryacTalbne,  but  to  a  series  of  revolution// 
ary  acts  which  inevitably  result  in  the  Social  Revolif 
tiqn.^  "The  bourgeoisie,  born  in  the  Revolution,  main- 
taining itself  in  a  struggle  against  the  Revolution,  can 
only  be  overcome  by  the  Revolution."1 

The  general  process  of  Socialist  readjustment  is  not 
determined  by  the  formulation  of  theoretical  prob- 
lems; it  is  not  a  study  in  theory,  but  a  study  in  the 
practice  and  the  material  basis  of  the  Socialist  move- 
ment. There  is  no  Socialism  without  the  class  strug- 
gle, and  the  carrier  ot  this  class  struggle  is  the  agency^ 
through  which  Socialism  functions.  The  readjust- 
ment of  Socialism,  accordingly,  is  determined  by  ad- 
justing itself  to  that  class  in  society  which  is  the  most 

1.    Democracy  and  Organization,  by  H.  Laufenberg  and  Fritz  Wolfheim. 


122  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

typical  product  of  modern  industry,  and  consequent- 
ly revolutionary.  Socialism  must  locate  this  classT 
and  express  its  material  conditions  of  struggle  and 
development] 

Socialism  reorganizes  in  accordance  with  the  al- 
tered class  relations  and  expression  of  class  interests 
of  imperialistic  Capitalism,  which  for  the  first  time 
approximate  the  conditions  considered  essential  for 
the  Social  Revolution  by  the  founders  of  Socialism. 

II 

According  to  our  analysis,  Socialism  has  been 
dominated  by  the  interests  of  skilled  labor,  marshalled 
by  the  petty  bourgeoisie  and  the  intellectuals  of  the 
new  middle  class.  This  domination  directed  the  move- 
ment straight  to  disaster. 

It  should  not  require  much  discussion  to  prove  the 
reactionary  character  of  the  remnants  of  the  small 
bourgeoisie  and  representatives  of  the  new  middle 
class.  The  petite  bourgeoisie  is  not  only  not  a  revolu- 
tionary class,  it  is  a  class  beaten  in  the  struggle  for 
social  supremacy,  destroyed  as  an  independent  factor 
and  a  vassal  of  dominant  Capitalism,  a  class  that  com- 
plains but  dares  not  revolt.  Its  interest  in  Socialism, 
except  in  the  case  of  isolated  individuals,  who  rise  su- 
perior to  their  petty  class  interests,  is  simply  to  use  the 
prestige  of  Socialism  to  promote  its  own  narrow  inter- 
ests. The  small  bourgeoisie  is  not  even  any  longer  re- 
actionary in  the  sense  of  Marx,  that  "it  tries  to  roll 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  123 

back  the  wheels  of  history"  ;  it  no  longer  has  the  neces- 
sary vigor  and  independence.  The  small  bourgeois 
simply  strives  to  make  more  comfortable  his  petty 
place  in  the  existing  system  of  things.  The  animating 
spirit  of  the  petite  bourgeoisie  is  compromise  —  it  com- 
promises with  Imperialism;  and  it  compromises  with 
Socialism;  but  where  the  compromise  with  Imper- 
ialism strengthens  Imperialism,  the  compromise  with 
Socialism  weakens  Socialism,  softens  its  aggressive 
spirit  and  alters  its  class  activity.  As  for  the  new 
middle  class,  it  is  essentially  the  product  of  concen- 
trated industry  and  Imperialism,  compelled  by  its 
very  nature  to  promote  the  interests  of  imperialistic 
Capitalism,  —  directly,  by  openly  adhering  to  Imper- 
ialism; indirectly,  by  allying  itself  with  Socialism 
upon  which  it  imposes  its  own  reactionary  purposes. 
Thgjiigbest  ideals 


collectivism  and  State_Capitalism.  But  Socialism  is^a 
revolutionary^  jbrcejhaL  rlisjaipls  capitalist  collectiv- 
ism, that  thrives  by  waging  unrelenting  war  upon  Cap- 


italism and  the  state  as  unified  in  State  Capitalism;  its 
purposes  are  not  expressed  in  a  pseudo-Socialism  of 
the  state,  but  in  the  supremacy  of  the  proletariat 
through  industrial  communism. 

Socialism,  accordingly,  must  throw  off  the  domina- 
tion and  destroy  the  influence  of  these  two  alien 
groups;  and  it  is  must  equally  throw  off  the  domina- 
tion of  skilled  labor  which,  as  a  caste,  becomes  in- 


124  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

creasingly  a  part  of  the  new  middle  class  and  of  re- 
actionary State  Capitalism. 

The  psychology  of  skilled  labor  is  the  psychology 
of  the  small  bourgeoisie;  it  thinks  in  terms  of  cajte 
and  property,  and  not  in  terms  of  class  and  solidarity 
>f  action.__  The  property  of  the  skilled  worker  isjiis 
raft  and  his~skHT,  and  his  struggles  against  his  em- 
)loyer  are  for  the  purposes  of  conserving  this  prop- 
erty and  increasing  its  purchase  price.2^ 

The  tendency  of  the  skilled  trades  is  to  promote 
their  interests  irrespective  of  the  rest  of  the  workers, 
and  often  by  brutal  betrayal  of  the  unorganized  and 
the  unskilled.  Their  unions  are  trusts  organized  to 
protect  property, — the  property  vested  in  a  skilled 
itrade  or  craft.  These  unions,  moreover,  are  corporate 
concerns,  organizations  of  crafts  which  reject  solidar- 
ity and  co-operation  with  other  crafts.  Admission  to 
the  craft  unions  is  limited  by  a  variety  of  means, 
including  abnormally  high  initiation  fees.  As  the 
owner  of  small  industrial  property  was  concerned 
solely  in  the  preservation  of  his  property,  so  the 
skilled  worker  is  concerned  solely  in  the  preservation 
of  his  craft  skill  and  prestige;  the  concentration  of  in- 
dustry expropriates  both  forms  of  property,  but  this 
fact,  instead  of  creating  a  revolutionary  psychology, 
intensifies  the  attachment  to  property  and  creates  re- 
action in  the  two  groups. 

2.  A  labor  union  is  not  necessarily  a  part  of  the  proletarian  class  Mrugjle. 
Not  if  the  members  aim  only  at  immediate  advantages,  perhaps  even  at  the  cost  of 
other  groups  of  workers. — Democracy  and  Organization,  by  H.  Laufenberg  and  Fritz 
Wolfheim. 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  125 

Originally,  the  slogan  of  skilled  labor  unions  is, 
"A  fair  day's  pay  for  a  fair  day's  work."  As  the 
unions  acquire  political  importance  and  the  develop- 
ment of  the  industrial  technology  menaces  the  skilled 
crafts,  a  new  conception  arises,  that  of  securing  recog- 
nition as  a  part  of  the  governing  system  of  things. 
Unable  to  cope  with  the  employing  class  industrially 
by  means  of  strikes,  because  of  industrial  concentra- 
tion and  the  decreasing  value  of  skilled  laborinlEe' 
technological JprocessTthe  unions  seek  to  accomplish 
their  ends  b^becomingjart  of jhe  government,  wmr- 
promising  withjta  (tominant  Capitalism  by  means  of 
governmental  coercion.  Their  activity  becomes  more 
intensely  that  of  a  caste,  a  caste  that  is  trying  to  ac- 
quire status  by  the  hocus  pocus  of  claiming  to  repre- 
sent the  working  class.3  The  unions  of  skilled  labor 
traffic  in  the  requirement  of  Imperialism  for  a  docile 
working  class,  and  secure  concessions  by  bartering 
away  their  independence  and  the  interests  of  the  un- 
organized and  the  unskilled.  One  of  the  reasons  why 
State  Capitalism  grants  a  measure  of  recognition  to 
the  unions  of  the  aristocracy  of  labor  is  for  the  pur- 
pose of  using  them  to  maintain  the  unskilled  and  the 
unorganized  in  subjection.  The  cleavage  between  the 
skilled  and  the  unskilled  widens. 

The  procedure  adopted  by  the  unions  of  skilled 

3.  The  Rt.  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes.  Laboritc  Member  of  the  British  War  Cabinet, 
said  in  an  interview  in  November,  1917:  "There  are  two  main  things  which  account 
for  the  [labor]  unrest.  One  is  the  question  of  status  and  the  other  the  question 
of  wages.  Of  these  two,  the  chief,  to  my  mind,  is  the  first." 


126  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

labor  to  secure  recognition  as  a  caste  in  the  governing 
system  of  things  is  determined  by  circumstances, — in 
Germany  and  France  by  using  the  Socialist  organiza- 
tions; in  the  United  States  by  bringing  pressure  upon 
the  government  through  the  political  party  representa- 
tives of  Capitalism;  in  England,  Australia  and  New 
Zealand  by  means  of  a  labor  party. 

ft  The  characteristics  and  purposes  of  skilled  labor 
jifind  their  clearest  expression  in  Laborism.  Having 
secured  political  power,  Laborism  becomes  more  than 
[a  force  for  securing  skilled  labor  a  place  in  the  gov- 
erning system  of  things;  it  becomes  the  bulwark  of 
that  system,  around  which  rally  the  interests  of  the 
small  bourgeoisie  and  the  new  middle  class,  and  con- 
sequently of  dominant  Capitalism  in  its  imperialistic 
activity.  When  the  war  broke,  the  Australian  Labor 
Party  was  in  power,4  with  almost  complete  control  of 


4.  The  Australian  Labor  Government  recently  sent  over  its  labor  Prime  Minister 
to  England  to  represent  its  interests  and  as  another  pledge  of  loyalty  to  the  Empire. 
The  utterances  of  "Labor  Premier"  William  Morris  Hughes,  who  started  his  career 
as  a  particularly  "revolutionary"  labor  leader,  have  met  with  delighted  applause 
from  the  imperialistic  British  press,  which  is  featuring  his  utterances  on  "organizing 
the  Empire."  Mr.  Hughes  was  active  in  the  I'.iris  Trade  Conference  of  the 
Allies,  which  met  to  determine  ways  and  means  r-f  an  economic  war  against  Ger- 
many after  the  military  war  is  over.  He  exo-<-ssed  himself  ae  favoring:  "A  joint  taniT 
system  which  will  establish  minimum  rates  among  tl  e  Allies  and  their  colonies. 
reasonable  rates  for  neutrals,  and  strong  di*:rinunation  against  all  dealings  with 
hostile  countries."  A  federated  empire,  with  a  centralized  War  Department,  aggres- 
sive militarism  and  Imperialism,  were  other  British  aims  formulated  by  Mr.  Hughes. 
.  .  But  is  there  any  real  difference  between  Australian  Laborism  and  English 
Laborism?  Superficially,  yes;  actually  no.  The  apparent  differences  flow  from  the 
circumstance  that  Laborism  is  in  power  in  Australia  and  is  a  negligible  governmental 
force  in  England.  Laborism,  whether  in  Australia  or  in  England,  starts  from  the 
same  premise :  working  within  the  bounds  of  the  national  organization,  and  main- 
taining the  unity  of  the  empire.  It  may  be  remembered  that  Keir  Hardie  refused 
granting  independence  to  India. — Louis  C.  Fraina,  "Laborism  and  Imperialism  in 
Australia,"  in  the  Neu>  Review,  June,  1916.  The  Labor  Party  repudiated  the  excesses 
of  its  Prime  Minister  and  other  officials,  but  did  not  fundamentally  alter  its  policy; 
incidentally,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  even  ordinary  bourgeois  liberals  disapproved 
of  Mr.  Hughes'  excesses.  Prime  Minister  Hughes  and  other  "Labor"  officials  formed 
a  coalition  with  the  bourgeois  representatives,  while  the  Labor  Party  was  strongly 
influenced  by  radical  currents  of  thought  and  action  generated  by  the  industrial 
proletariat. 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  127 

the  federal  and  local  governments.  Australia  imme- 
diately sent  contingent  after  contingent  of  troops  to 
"fight  for  liberty"  in  Europe;  and  one  of  the  first  of 
these  contingents  was  used  to  "fight  for  liberty"  by 
maintaining  British  rule  in  Egypt.  With  but  half  the 
population  Australia  provided  nearly  as  many  troops 
as  Canada ;  the  officials  of  the  Labor  Party  gave  their 
heartiest  support  and  encouragement  to  the  war  and 
British  Imperialism,  proving  in  this  respect  much 
more  zealous  than  the  bourgeois  government  of  Can- 
ada. The  militarist,  imperialist  and  protectionist  in- 
terests of  Australia  are  in  the  ascendant.  Laborism 
directly  and  actively  promoted  the  interests  of  Imper- 
ialism. 

The  policy  of  laborism  in  England  has  been  equally: 
reactionary.  It  used  the  war  to  conserve  the  status  of 
the  unions  as  a  caste;  it  bartered  away  its  integrity 
for  a  place  in  the  governing  system  of  things,  and 
secured  the  place.  The  strikes  in  England  during  the 
war  were  generally  either  a  revolt  against  the  policy 
of  Laborism  or  an  expression  of  the  unskilled;  and 
where  the  unions  of  skilled  labor  waged  strikes  it  was 
to  protect  its  status  as  a  caste  and  to  maintain  the  un- 
skilled and  the  unorganized  in  subjection.  In  its  pol- 
icy on  war  and  peace  the  British  Labor  Party  pro- 
moted the  interests  of  Imperialism,  justified  and  man- 
ufactured an  ideology  for  the  war,  and  became  the 
last  bulwark  of  defense  of  British  Imperialism.  It 
played  fast  and  loose  with  terms  of  peace,  and  per- 


128  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

petrated  the  outrageous  fraud  of  pretending  to  have 
declared  its  solidarity  with  revolutionary  proletarian 
Russia,  when  as  a  matter  of  fact  its  whole  program 
was  a  negation  of  the  declarations  of  revolutionary 
Russia.  In  January,  1918,  the  Labor  Party  opened  its 
doors  to  "workers  of  the  brain,"  thereby  completing 
and  emphasizing  its  character  as  a  party  of  skilled 
labor,  the  small  bourgeoisie  and  the  new  middle  class, 
uniting  to  promote  their  interests  through  State  Cap- 
italism. The  government  of  Lloyd  George  more  and 
more  had  to  depend  upon  British  Laborism  to  pro- 
mote the  war,  and  the  attitude  of  the  Labor  Party,  as 
much  as  the  attitude  of  the  dominant  Socialism  and 
trades  unions  in  Germany,  directly  discouraged  and 
prevented  revolutionary  action  of  the  great  mass  of 
the  workers.  There  was  an  abandonment  of  the  gen- 
eral interests  of  the  proletariat.  Laborism  in  England 
airectly  and  actively  promoted  social-Imperialism. 

In  this  country,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
pursued  a  policy  similar  to  that  of  the  trades  unions 
in  England,  France  and  Germany.  It  declared  for 

'the  war,  and  the  officials  of  many  of  its  affiiliated 
unions  became  even  more  rampantly  patriotic  than 
the  National  Security  League.  It  did  not  even  flaunt 
the  colors  of  the  liberal  bourgeoisie,  but  adopted  an 
unrelenting  and  reactionary  attitude  on  the  war.  The 

/national  bureaucracy  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  acquiesced  in 
proposals  by  which  the  workers  could  be  cajoled  from 
striking  during  the  war.  Gompers  acted  as  the  office 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  129 

boy,  not  of  the  "liberal"  elements  of  American 
Capitalism,  but  of  its  most  reactionary  representa- 
tives. Indeed,  the  A.  F.  of  L.  policy  was  even  too 
reactionary  for  the  British  Labor  Party  and  the 
French  unions,  the  representatives  of  which  vainly 
tried  to  convince  Gompers  and  the  "American  Labor 
Mission"  of  the  reactionary  character  of  their  attitude. 
Moreover,  Gompers  and  his  bureaucracy  did  not  even 
show  the  low  intelligence  of  British  labor  leaders  in 
their  dealings  with  the  government.  The  British 
Labor  Party  as  payment  for  its  support  of  the  war 
secured  a  recognized  place  in  the  government,  and 
became  a  direct  factor  in  the  management  of  things; 
but  the  A.  F.  of  L.  bartered  away  its  independence  and 
integrity  and  received  no  mess  of  pottage  as  payment. 
The  policyofj^aborism  results  from  the  concept 
that  the  intejgsjts_gfj[abgr_depend  upon  the  interests  of 
capital.  Where  these  interests  clash  it  is  assumed  as  * 
being  more  or  less  accidental  and  incidental;  their; 
identity  of  interest  is  still  the  dominant  factor.  As/ 
the  struggles  between  groups  in  the  capitalist  class,/ 
often  severe  and  bitter,  do  not  destroy  their  funda- 
mental identity  of  interests,  so  the  struggle  between 
labor  and  capital,  according  to  the  theory  of  Labor-/ 
ism,  does  not  alter  their  identity  of  interest.  The 
unions  are  careful  that  their  struggles  shall  in  no  way 
menace  Capitalism  itself.  The  employer  may  be 
fought,  but  his  power  must  not  be  menaced.  On  the 
field  of  international  action,  this  policy  is  expressed  in 


130  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

backing  up  the  capitalist  class  in  its  projects  of  imper- 
ialistic expansion  and  wars.     If  our  Capitalism  is 
weakened  by  defeat,  reasons  Laborism,  the  unions  will 
suffer  through  unemployment,  longer  hours  and  lower 
wages;  and,  therefore,  Laborism  promotes  the  intersts 
pf  imperialistic  Capitalism.    Nationally,  the  policy  of 
/Laborism  concerns  itself  simply  with  the  interests  of 
/skilled  labor  and  ignores  the  bulk  of  the  workers, 
j  Internationally,  its  policy  promotes  the  narrow  inter- 
/  ests  of  a  nation  to  the  exclusion  of  general  proletarian 
I  revolutionary  interests.     Nationally  and  internation- 
ally, accordingly,  Laborism  betrays  the  cause  of  the 
/proletariat.5 

An  essential  characteristic  of  Laborism  in  power 
is  that  it  uses  the  power  of  the  state  to  suppress  ruth- 
lessly the  strikes  of  the  unorganized  and  the  unskilled. 
But  this  procedure  is  an  inevitable  consequence  of  the 
psychology  and  status  of  Laborism,  which  is  non-pro- 
letarian and  has  "grown  into"  the  existing  system. 
The  industrial  proletariat  of  unskilled  labor  threatens 
this  system,  and  Laborism  uses  all  its  power  of  repres- 
sion against  this  revolutionary  class.  All  non-pro- 
letarian elements  coalesce  into  one  general  reaction- 


5.  This  ideology  It  the  ideology  of  Socialism  wherever  its  councils  are  dominated 
by  skilled  labor.  Wolfgang  Heine  represented  this  "Socialist  Laborism"  when  in  a 
speech  on  February  22,  1915,  he  said:  "Our  working  people  live  from  industry.  Espe- 
cially from  export  trade.  If  this  is  destroyed,  the  worker  will  be  more  damaged  than 
the  employer.  The  capitalist  can  take  his  money  away  and  put  it  in  other  under- 
takings, even  abroad.  The  worker,  if  he  has  no  more  work,  is  ruined.  It  has  been 
taid,  'What  difference  does  it  make  whether  the  worker  has  any  longer  a  living  in 
Germany?  He  emigrates  and  expends  his  labor  power  elsewhere.'  That  is  no  longer 
such  a  simple  affair,  and  our  German  working  people  are  too  good  to  serve  as  fer- 
tilizer for  foreign  civilization.  In  spite  of  all  conflicts  with  the  present  state,  the 
worker  it  bound  to  it." 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  131 

ary  mass  against  the  unskilled.  Laborism  in  action 
proves  conclusively  its  non-proletarian  character,  and 
strengthens  the  consciousness  of  the  unskilled,  who 
decide  upon  independent  action.  The  cleavage  widens 
between  the  non-proletarian  and  proletarian  elements 
among  the  workers,  and  it  is  the  task  of  Socialism  to 
intensify  and  organize  this  cleavage  by  arousing  the 
independent  action  and  emphasizing  the  revolutionary 
character  of  the  industrial  proletariat  of  unskilled 
labor — the  carrier  of  the  Social  Revolution.6 


in 

The  process  of  concentration  in  industry  expropri-/ 
ates  the  skill  of  the  skilled  worker  by  standardizing! 
labor  through  the  perfection  of  machinery.  But  this* 
fact,  as  in  the  case  of  the  small  bourgeoisie,  makes 
skilled  labor  even  more  reactionary.  The  unions  try  A 
to  maintain  the  prestige  of  their  craft  skill  by  means  oy 
their  organizations,  through  political  action,  and  by 
bringing  the  unskilled  under  their  subjection.  At- 
tempts are  made  by  the  unions  to  organize  the  un- 
skilled, but  the  purpose  is  simply  to  maintain  the 
power  of  the  crafts.  The  ideology  of  property,  which 
is  the  ideology  of  the  small  bourgeoisie,  continues  to 
dominate  the  minds  of  the  skilled  after  their  "prop- 


6.  In  New  Zealand,  the  Labor  Party  repeatedly  betrayed  the  unskilled,  and 
these  betrayals  finally  resulted  in  the  formation  of  a  new  proletarian  party,  the 
Social  Democratic  Party.  Five  years  ago  the  United  Federation  of  Labor,  which 
practically  adopted  the  I.  W.  W.  preamble,  prepared  for  a  general  strike,  relying 
chiefly  upon  seamen,  dock  laborers  and  miners.  The  strike  was  betrayed  by  skilled 
labor,  which  deserted.  Moreover,  the  United  Labor  Party  issued  a  manifesto  against 
the  strike,  and  this  betrayal  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  strike's  failure.  Skilled 
labor,  its  unions  and  its  party,  joined  hands  with  the  employers  and  strikebreakers. 


132  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

erty"  has  been  expropriated  by  the  machine  process. 
This  ideology,  in  the  first  place,  prevents  the  unions 
from  generally  organizing  the  unskilled;  and,  in  the 
second  place,  injuriously  affects  those  unskilled  that 
come  under  the  domination  of  the  unions.  Unions 
composed  essentially  of  the  unskilled  proletariat,  such 
as  the  United  Mine  Workers,  are  seduced  into  reaction 
by  their  affiliation  with  the  A.  F.  of  L.;  the  bureauc- 
racy of  these  unions  becomes  a  typical  craft  union 
bureaucracy,  and  time  and  again  have  the  mine  work- 
ers been  betrayed  by  their  own  officials.  The  unskilled 
ire  organized,  where  they  are  organized  by  the  A.  F. 
L.,  simply  to  protect  the  crafts  from  the  ravages 
of  the  machine  industry.7  The  members  of  craft 
unions  have  repeatedly  scabbed  during  strikes  of  the 
unskilled  in  the  past,  when  their's  was  the  power;  to- 
day, the  unions  make  perfunctory  efforts  to  organize 
for  their  own  interests  the  unskilled  to  whom  is  pass- 
ing the  actual  power  in  industry. 

\       This  circumstancej)£^)pwer  is  determinant. The 

I  unskiiled^roJetariat  is  the  typical  product  of  modern 

1  Capitalism  and  controls  the  basic  industries.     This 

prcleta^ian^cT^scontrolsequjll^jbe  destiny  of  Cap- 

italism  and  of  skilled  labor.    The  mining  industry  and 

7.     Briefly,  the  organization  of  the  unskilled  is  not  compatible  with  the  A.  F.  of  L., 

\   for   the   reason    that   the   latter   in    its   essentials   is   a    federation   of   individual   crafts, 

'  whereas  the  unskilled  cannot  by  any  means  be  so  classed.     .     .     .     The  consciousness 

that  they   [the  unskilled]   cannot  achieve  their  solidarity  with  the  American  Federation 

of   Labor   is   one   of   the   chief   reasons   why    they    do   not   join    the   United   Laborers' 

Locals   which    have    been    instituted    in    their   special    behalf.      They   know   that   there 

is   no   identity   of   interest   between   themselves   and    the   craft   organizations;    that    the 

latter  will  use  them  when  it  is  convenient  to  do  so,  otherwise  they  will  repudiate  them 

or  will  refuse  to  make  any  effort  to  help  them  gain  better  conditions. — Austin  Lewi*, 

"Organization  of  the  Unskilled,"  in  the  New  Review,  November,  1913. 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  133 

the  steel  industry  are  domuiatejLlay-4bc  unskilled; 
and,  except  in  a  few  casesTas  for  example  the  locomo- 
tive engineers,  this  is  equally  true  of  the  railway  in- 
dustry and  of  transportation  generally. 

What  are  the  characteristics  of  the  proletariat  of 
average  unskilled  labor?     The  unskilled  proletariat 
is  the  Jndnstrial^jTiTYjTpitariat  of  standardized  machine 
industry^    An  unskilled  proletarian  is  not  necessarily 
and  always  simply  a  worker  who  has  no  skill.    The 
Mexican  peon,  the  "coolie"  of  China,  may  have  no 
skill  or  craft,  but  he  is  not  an  unskilled  proletarian 
in  the  sociological  sense.     The  unskilled  preMtmat 
is  a  machine  proletariat^  As  Capitalism  develops,  the 
industrial  process  is  standardi/H,  thft  Inbor  flp^n'nl- 
ized.     The  perfection  of  machinery  expropriates  the 
skilled  worker  of  his  skill,  as  such,  makes  him  simply 
a  machine-minder,  or  drives  him  into  minor  indus- 
tries where  technological  development  lags;  individ- 
ual skill  becomes  of  no  importance  except  for  a  small 
group,  and  what  slight  aptitude  may  be  necessary  can 
be  acquired  in  a  few  days  or  weeks.     The  worker 
becomes  an  appendage  nf  thft  machine;  it  is  no  longer 
a  skilled  worker  that  usesthe  machine,  but  the  ma- 
chine uses  an  unskilled  worker.    l-^OT^b^onc^§_a^T' 
age  labor,  Standardized  and  specialized  as  an  auto- 
matic^ tactor  in  thfi  TnanViinft  prorass.     The  machine 
subjects  the  worker  to  its  process;  the  procedure  be- 
comes mechanical,  the  organization  systematic  and 
standardized;  standardization  eliminates  skill,  crafts- 


134  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

manship,  intelligence  and  individuality;  the  worker 
no  longer  has  the  skill  of  a  craft:  he  has  simply  labor 
power,  hands  and  muscle,  and  the  eyes  that  direct 
these  hands  and  muscle.  A  new  skilled  labor  is 
created,  the  very  small  minority  of  engineers,  super- 
intendents, and  technicians  generally.  TheefficienQy 
movement  climaxes  this  development:  its  exponents 
are  concerned  not  in  the  skill  of  the  workers^but_gL 
theJegularitY  aJJ^'standardization  of  their  movements. 


TEe  proIetariaTEecomes  in  far*  «  marking  proletariat-8 
THemachine  process  dominates  not  a  single  fac- 
tory or  industry',  but  the  whole  of  industry,  integrat- 
ing and  standardizing  the  industrial  system.  Indus- 
try correlates  itself,  and  if  it  ceases  functioning  at 
one  point,  the  whole  system  feels  the  shock.  The  con- 
centration  of  capital  and  the  machine  process  operate 
jointly  to  unify  the  industrial  system,  in  which  com- 
mon  labor  controls  the  working  activity^  Thus,  while 
the  machine  process  strips  the  worker  of  all  skill,  it 
simultaneously  creates  and  places  in  his  hands  an  im- 
mense power,  the  power  of  at  any  moment  dislocat- 
ing the  process  of  production  through  the  mass  action 
of  any  considerable  group  of  proletarians.  The 


8.  The  share  of  the  operative  workman  in  the  machine  industry  is  typically  that 
of  an  attendant,  an  assistant,  whose  duty  it  is  to  keep  pace  with  the  machine 
process  and  to  help  out  with  workmanlike  manipulation  at  points  where  the  machine 
process  engaged  is  incomplete.  His  work  supplements  the  machine  process,  rather 
than  makes  use  of  it.  On  the  contrary,  the  machine  process  makes  use  of  the 
workman.  The  ideal  mechanical  contrivance  is  the  automatic  machine.  Perfection 
in  the  machine  technology  is  attained  in  the  degree  in  which  the  given  process  can 
dispense  with  manual  labor;  whereas  perfection  in  the  handicraft  system  means 
perfection  of  manual  workmanship.  It  is  the  part  of  the  workman  to  know  the 
working  of  the  mechanism  in  which  he  i*  associated  and  to  adapt  his  movements 
with  mechanical  accuracy  to  its  requirements. — Thorstein  Veblen,  The  Instinct  of 
Workmanship. 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  135 

strikes  of  the  unskilled  unconsciously  but  inevitably 
assume  the  large  proportions  of  mass  revolts,  includ- 
ing scores  of  thousands  of  workers,  where  the  strikes 
of  the  crafts  seldom  did;  it  is  easy  to  replace  a  few 
thousand  workers  at  their  jobs,  but  it  is  much  more 
difficult  to  replace  twenty  or  one  hundred  thousand. 
The  proletariat  instinctively  adjusts  itself  to  this  fact. 
Thejmachine  process  makes  a  homogeneous  mass 
out  of  the  heterogeneous  racial  and  religious  ele- 
ments; the  machine  process  subjects  the  diversity  of 
these  workers  to  a  commondiscipline,  a  common  suf- 
fering, a  common  ideology.  "By  and  large,"  says 
VeBIenT^the  technology  of  the  machine  process  is  a 
technology  of  action  by  contact."  Action  by  contact! 
Thisjechnological  jact  permeates  the_consciQusness 
of  the  unskilled  workers,  sjibUy_jnculcates  themjyith 
thlTlo!eat~oT~87Jidarityrof  action.  The  outstanding 
|f  act  in  the  revolts  of  the  unskilled  is  that  they  ex- 
Ihibit  a  remarkable  degree  of  solidarity  and  assume 
Revolutionary  proportions  and  expression.  The  great 
industrial  revolts  of  the  past  twenty  years  in  this 
country  have  been  revolts  of  the  unskilled,  revolts 
that  coalesced  around  revolutionary  organizations 
and  activity.  While  the  skilled  were  bargaining,  the 
unskilled  were  fighting.  Moreover,  the  strikes  of  the 
unskilled  Eave~Eeen  remarkably  free  from  violence, 
while  the  craft  unions  have  repeatedly  indulged  in 
that  individual  and  secret  violence  which  is  charac- 
teristic of  groups  beaten  in  the  social  struggle.  The 


136  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

machine  process  impresses  upon  the  minds  of  the  un- 
skilled the  value  of  force,  of  control  of  the  industrial 
process,  of  solidarity  in  action;  and  these  circum- 
stances inevitably  discourage  sporadic  acts  of  individ- 
ual violence.  It  is  the  great  fact  and  hope  of  the 
machine  proletariat  that,  during  the  great  strikes 
of  the  unskilled,  in  which  men  and  women  speaking 
dozens  of  languages  participated,  there  was  no  vio- 
lence on  their  part,  no  hysteria  of  despair,  but  there 
was  determination,  solidarity,  the  aggressive  spirit 
of  the  revolution  in  action.  The  proletarian  rgyolu- 
tionjs  imtjfnatgi^<iJhy_yjrj]f>Tir-ft,  but  it  makes  use^of 
industrial  power  and  organized  force. 

But  the  machine  process  does  not  simply  organize 
the  proletariat  through  the  mechanism  of  production 
itself;  it  simultaneously  creates  a  new  ideology  among 
the  workers.  The  skilled  worker  thinks  in  terms  of^ 
craft,  of  the  individual  and  his  property;  the  un- 
skilled proletariat  thinks  in  terms  of  the  mass,  of 
power,  and  of  the  control  of  the  machine  process.  The 
skilled  cling  to  craft  strikes,  the  unskilled  turn  to  mass 
action.  All  the  facts,  all  the  indications  prove  that 
the  action  of  the  unskilled  industrial  proletariat  in- 
evitably proceeds  along  general  and  revolutionary 
lines,  that  it  is  a  revolutionary  class.9 


9.  This  great  fact  was  proven  and  emphasized  during  the  proletarian  revolution 
in  Russia.  Thnj^^oi-nto  gn^ialUf«i  th(>  ftlensheviki.  representing  the  dominant  Social- 
ism, largely  expressed  skilled  labor  and  the  small  Bourgeoisie ;  while  the  great  strength 
of  the  Bolshevik!  lay  in  their  influence  among  the  industrial  workers,  the  unskilled 
proletariat.  The  railway  unions,  dominated  officially  by  the  skilled  workers,  acted 
in  favor  of  the  revolution  to  overthrow  Czarism,  but  they  acted  against  the  pro- 
letarian revolution  as  expressed  in  the  Bolshevist  movement ;  and  when  the  revolu- 
tionary proletarian  government  dissolved  the  Constituent  Assembly,  because  it  was 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  137 

The  proletariat  of  unskilled  labor  is  a  pariah;  it 
has  no  part  in  the  existing  system,  except  that  of  a 
beast  of  burden.  Its  pariah  position  and  the  domina- 
tion of  the  machine  process  in  its  ideology  separate  it 
from  the  rest  of  the  community.  The  proletariat  is 
out  of  touch  with  the  pernicious  upper  class  ideas  that 
contaminate  skilled  labor;  and  the  great  danger  is 
that  the  unions  of  the  "aristocracy  of  labor"  may  for 
a  time  impress  these  ideas  upon  a  portion  of  the  un- 
skilled, although  the  machine  process  itself  prevents 
this  from  being  permanent.  All  the  circumstances, 
all  the  conditions,  all  the  thoughts  of  this  industrial 
proletariat  place  it  against  the  existing  system;  its 
control  of  industry  gives  it  the  power  of  overthrow- 
ing that  system.  All  other  classes  are  arrayed  against 
this  machine  proletariat,  even  the  skilled  portions  of 
the  working  class.  They  all  have  contempt  for  this 
proletariat  of  unskilled  labor;  its  strikes  are  betrayed 
by  the  skilled  and  crushed  by  the  violence  of  the  state. 
The  unskilled  proletarian  has  no  rights  except  what 
he  can  conquer  by  his  own  power;  he  trusts  no  one 
but  himself.  The  conditions  of  imperialistic  Capital- 
ism, with  its  merging  of  upper  class  interests  into  a 
general  reactionary  mass,  including  the  aristocracy  of 
labor,  intensifies  the  brutality  against  the  unskilled 


counter-revolutionary,    representative    of    the    bourgeois    democracy    of   all    the    classes 

and   an   expression    of   the   parliamentary   system    that    the   revolution    must   necessarily 

annihilate,   the  railway   unions  opposed  the   Bolsheviki  and  supported  the   Constituent 

Assembly.      The    Social.   Reyolution_can    be_carried    through    only    by    the    industrial       \  I   /  f  / 

proletariat    of~~nBskilled    labor,    in    spite    of~~afl<l    auling    ugaiuBt    ail    the    jdrnn    •""      1  I   I     '    f 

aCUTIHV    M   ii II    iiilnu    mii'lal    group*.      The    circumstance    that    individuals,    even    if    in      /  ' 

considerable   numbers,    may    migrate    from    one    class    to   another,    does    not   alter    the 

character  or  interests  of   the   classes. 


138  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

and  the  contempt  in  which  they  are  held.  The  un- 
skilled  proletarian  is  determined  by  his  very  existence 
against  the  ruling  system  of  things.  Bourgeois  morals, 
bourgeois  law,  bourgeois  rights,  are  things  with  which 
he  comes  in  contact  only  when  they  are  used  to  op- 
press him,tocheat  him,  to  drive  him  back  to  woik 
as^jTlflave. Is  it  any  wonder,  then,  that  when  the 
I  unskilled  proletariat  acts  it  acts  in  a  revolutionary 
^vay  that  shakes  the  whole  social  fabric?10 

The  ideology  of  the  machine  process  is  a  vital  fac- 
tor in  the  discussion  of  the  problems  of  a  revolution- 
ary class.  Such  a  class  must  not  only  be  economically 
in  antagonism  to  the  ruling  class,  it  must  equally  de- 
velop an  ideological  antagonism.  This  ideological  an- 
tagonism cannot  be  created  simply  by  propaganda;  it 
must  spring  out  of  the  material  conditions  of  the  class 
litself.  Skilled  labor,  after  all,  is  a  survival  of  the 
jera  of  handicraft,  and  its  ideology  cannot  be  typical 
jof  the  modern  revolutionary  class.  Moreover,  the  at- 
tachment of  the  craft  unionist  to  the  property  vested 
in  his  skill  creates  a  property  ideology,  an  ideology 
that  psychologically  affiliates  skilled  labor  with  the 
small  bourgeoisie.  Skilled  labor,  accordingly,  can- 
not as  yet  think  and  act  in  terms  of  the  revolution; 
it  thinks  and  acts  in  terms  of  the  bourgeois  system  of 
things. 

10.  The  machine  process  tends  to  widen  the  gulf  between  the  possessing  and 
\the  revolutionary  classes.  .  .  .  The  proletariat,  or  at  least  that  nucleus  of  it 
Which  we  have  pointed  out  as  being  engaged  in  the  machine  process,  actually  does 
tend  to  become  more  and  more  revolutionary,  that  is,  to  take  up  a  continually  more 
iconoclastic  attitude  to  the  natural  rights  theories. — Austin  Lewis,  The  Militant 
Proletariat. 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  139 

It  is  clear,  of  course,  that  the  interests  of  skilled 
labor  could  more  advantageously  be  promoted  by 
revolutionary  struggle.  But  this  requires  forward 
vision,  which  skilled  labor  cannot  develop  until  it 
emancipates  itself  from  the  psychological  domination 
of  the  small  bourgeoisie;  and  this  emancipation  can 
be  achieved  only  by  the  pressure  of  revolutionary 
events  from  below  through  the  action  of  the  unskilled 
proletariat;  only  by  a  Socialism  that,  based  upon  the 
industrialjiroletariat  of  average  l^bor.  wages  an  un- 
compromi^ing__struggle  against  the  whole  Capitalist 
regime.  Skilled  labor,  or  what  remnants  of  it  may 
remain,  will  become  a  factor  in  the  revolution  only 
when  it  is  compelled  to  align  itself  with  and  recognize 
the  power  of  the  great  industrial  proletariat.  But 
this  is  not  yet.  Subtly,  in  a  hundred  and  one  ways, 
\the  craft  unionist  absorbs  the  ideology  of  the  bour- 
geois order.  He  sees  his  equal,  not  in  the  common 

/proletarian,  but  in  the  man  of  property.  All  the 
ideals,  all  the  hypocrisy,  all  the  pettiness  of  soul  of 
the  existing  order  eat  away  at  the  psychological  vitals 
of  the  skilled  worker.  It  is  different  with  the  un- 
skilled. The  material  conditions  and  ideology  of  the 
/Proletarian  class  unite  to  produce  a  revolutionary  ex- 
pression; not  because  it  is  consciously  revolutionary, 
but  because  its  social  position  drives  it  on  toward  revo- 

/j  lutionary  action  as  the  only  immediate  as  well  as 
ultimate  way  out  of  its  misery.  The  machine  pro- 
cess is  typical  of  modern  conditions  and  it  alone  can 


140  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

determine  a  revolutionary  consciousness.  If  the  ma- 
chine process  affects  the  whole  culture  of  our  day, 
including  science,  as  Veblen  shows,  how  much  more 
compelling  must  its  influence  be  upon  the  minds  of 
the  men  and  women  actually  engaged  in  this  process! 
The  machine  process  creates  an  economic  antagonism 
to  the  existing  order  among  the  proletarians;  it 
equally  creates  that  ideological  antagonism  without 
which  a  revolutionary  class  cannot  fulfill  its  historic 
mission. 

This  curcumstance  of  ideology  is  an  important  fac- 
tor, the  importance  of  which  has  been  slighted  in 
Socialist  propaganda.11  A  revolution  does  not  spring 
simply  out  of  ma^tjerialjxmditions,  but  out  of  an  ide- 

11.  The  vital  thing  to  us  as  men  of  action,  as  seers  of  a  new  vision  of  life,  is  to 
analyze  and  interpret  the  psychological  reaction  of  the  workers  to  their  conditions 
of  existence;  the  emotional  temper  produced  by  machine  industry,  the  new  type  of 
mind,  of  men,  of  outlook  upon  life  being  developed.  .  .  The  literature  of 
Socialism  abounds  with  phrases  concerning  "proletarian  psychology,"  and  ''pro- 
letarian modes  of  thought."  But  these  terms  are  simply  convenient  phrases  with  no 
concrete  meaning.  This  literature  deals  thoroughly  and  magnificently  with  the 
material  conditions  determining  the  consciousness  of  men;  but  scarcely  an  effort 
is  being  made  to  analyze  that  consciousness  itself,  particularly  the  changes  wrought 
therein  by  the  changing  social  existence.  The  philosophical  system  of  Marx  recog- 
nizes the  immense  power  of  psychological  factors  in  history.  Maix  stressed  the 
importance  of  human  effort  and  the  human  factor.  In  his  Poverty  of  Philosophy 
Marx  scored  Proudhon  for  not  understanding  t'nat  "social  relations  are  as  much 
produced  by  men  as  are  the  cloth,  linen,  etc.  .  .  .  The  same  men  who  establish 
social  relations  in  conformity  with  their  material  productivity,  produce  also  the 
principles,  the  ideals,  the  categories  conformably  with  their  social  relations."  In 
the  Eighteenth  Brumaire  of  Louis  Bonaparte:  "Man  makes  his  own  history."  In 
one  of  his  fragmentary  notes  on  Feuerbach,  Marx  indicates  the  dynamic  role  of  the 
individual  in  the  revolution:  "The  materialistic  doctrine  that  men  are  the  products 
of  conditions  and  education,  different  men,  therefore,  the  products  of  other  condi- 
tions and  changed  education,  forgets  that  circumstances  may  be  altered  by  men, 
and  that  the  educator  has  himself  to  be  educated."  The  importance  Marx  attached 
to  the  human  factor  emphasizes  itself  in  Capital:  "By  thus  acting  on  the  external 
world  and  changing  it  he  [man]  at  the  same  time  changes  his  own  nature.  He 
develops  his  slumbering  powers,  and  compels  them  to  act  in  obsdience  to  his  own 
sway."  Man  changes  his  own  nature.  Are  not  these  changes  as  important  as,  perhaps 
more  important  than,  the  social  conditions  producing  these  changes?  .  .  .  The 
value  of  psychology  is  greater  than  the  simple  analysis  of  social  problems.  As  social 
conditions  are  transformed,  men  are  transformed ;  and  the  supreme  utility  of 
psychology  lies  in  the  analysis  of  the  transformation  in  t.ie  nature  of  man.  .  , 
Economics  has  given  us  a  vision  of  the  new  society;  psychology  will  give  us  a  vision 
of  the  new  humanity. — Louis  C.  Fraina,  "Socialism  and  Psychology,"  in  The  New 
Review,  May  1,  1915. 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  141 

ology  corresponding  to  these  material  conditions^  The 
material  conditions  provide  the  objective  forces  neces- 
:sary  for  a  revolution;  but  this  must  be  supplemented 
by  the  subjective  force  of  revolutionary  intensity,  of 
fan  ideology  that  is  completely  alien  to  the  ruling  ide- 
iiology  of  the  nation.  This  ideology  is  not  created  by 
the  revolution  itself,  but  precedes  the  revolution  and 
becomes  a  factor  in  bringing  the  revolution;  and  it 
is  indispensable  for  the  Socialist  in  theory  and  in 
practise  to  adapt  himself  to  this  ideology.  Of  course, 
the  dominant  Socialism  has  an  ideology  of  its  own, 
but  it  is  an  expression  of  the  modes  of  thought  of 
skilled  labor  and  the  small  bourgeoise;  no  effort  has 
been  made  to  study  and  express  the  ideology  of  the 
basic  industrial  proletariat. 

TTiis_nejy_idgolQgy  finds  vivid  pnrl  rnnp.rpte  &\. 
pression  injhejsojidarity  concept  animating  thp!  apjjnn 
of  the  unskilled  proletariat.  Solidarity  is  a  concept 
alien  to  the  consciousne^s^£_die_cjafOiniO]aiitrwhose 
material  existence  creates  the  psychology  of  laissez 
faire,  of  hftjn£_jgte-i'ftstftd  in  his  Q_-yynjmr_aft_jnt;ftrRSts 

alone.     The  skilled  crafts  usually  scab  upon  each 
other;  the  unskilled  workers,  seldom.     The  really/ 
vital  manifestations  of  solidarity  in  the  American] 
labor  movement  have  been  dominantly  the  expression  / 
of  unskilled  labor  in  action.    In  the  fury  produced  by 
the  betrayals  of  skilled  labor,  the  unskilled  occasion- 
ally scab  upon  the  craft  unions,  at  first;  but  so  strong 
is  their  consciousness  of  solidarity  that  this  is  the  ex- 


142  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

ception,  and  not  the  rule*  Repeatedly  have  the  un- 
skilled rallied  to  the  support  of  the  skilled  during 
strikes;  and  repeatedly  have  they  been  betrayed  in 
the  settlement.  An  important  expression  of  craft 
unionism  is  organized  scabbery.  The  craft  jnterests 
split  the  unions;  the  identity  of 


ditions  unites  the  unskilled.  Instinctively,  they  sense 
in  solidarity  their  great  offensive  aiidjlefensive  Twea- 
pon^  Even  the  unskilled  proletarians  not  continu- 
"ously  in  contact  with  the  machine  process  express  a 
fine  sense  of  solidarity,  such  is  the  compelling  in- 
fluence of  their  pariah  conditions.  Moreover,  recent 
/labor  history  shows  that  the  only  international  solidar- 
ity of  labor  in  action  has  been  an  expression  of  the- 
I  unskilled  industrial  proletariat.  The  material  con- 
ditions  of  the  machine  process  are  producing  a  pro- 
letariat with  a  sense  of  class  solidarity  without  which 
tfiefejamiot  be  a  Social  Revolution. 

As  the  machine  process  develops  in  scope,  skilled 
labor  comes  under  its  influence;  more  and  more  the 
lachine  process  presses  the  skilled  down  to  the  level 
)f  .the  unskilled  proletariat.     But  this  development 
is  not  sufficient  to  make,  ideologically,  a  proletarian 
out  of  the  skilled  worker;  it  makes  the  skilled  use  the 
proletariat  to  artificially  bolster  up  his  declining  pres- 
tige.   It  is  the  action  of  the  unskilled  proletariat  from 
jbelow  that  will  dominate  the  skilled  workers  up  above. 
|There  develops,  moreover,  an  unskilled  opposition 
within  the  unions,  and  the  struggle  becomes  bitter;  it 


SOCIALIST  READJUSTMENT  143 

is  the  unity  of  this  unskilled  opposition  in  the  unions 
with  the  unorganized  unskilled  out  of  which  will  be 
forged  a  revolutionary  labor  movement,  and  this 
movement  will  sooner  or  later  revolutionize  the  whole 
(labor  struggle.12 

Thejnachine  .proletariat :  _of Laveragejanskilled  labor 
institutes ^ jhg,_  typical   prj^et^a^Jn_thft    Marxian 


;  it  includes  increasingly  the  overwhelming  bulk 
of  the  workers,  and  it  alonejs  a  revolutionary  class?" 

This  proletariat  must  constitute  the  material  basis  of 
Socialism.  It  must  be  awakened  to  consciousness  and 
independence  of  action;  it  must  be  rescued  from  a 
complete  or  partial  domination  by  the  craft  unions; 
it  must  become  the  driving  force  of  Socialist  propa- 
ganda and  activity.  On  the  basis  of  a  reorganization 
that  expresses  this  revolutionary  class  and  its  indus- 
trial power,  Socialism  alone  can  adopt  a  revolutionary 
attitude  toward  all  other  problems. 

The  class  struggle,  is  a  struggle  £ox-power.  The  class 

Struggle  itsftlf  is  a  form  of  -ygar,  spr.ial  war,  and 


12.  During  this  struggle,  the  question  of  industrial  onion  organization  crop* 
up  in  the  unions,  and  end*  in  a  miserable  compromise  in  the  form  of  "amalgama- 
tion." Moreover,  the  "industrial"  form  is  adopted  only  if  the  skilled  crafts  can 
maintain  the  unskilled  in  subjection.  At  the  1914  Congress  of  German  Labor  Unions, 
the  executive  committee  reported:  "Labor  Union  development  u  undeniably  in  the 
direction  of  the  amalgamation  of  organizations  into  great  and  powerful  unions,  and 
technical  evolution  more  than  ever  requires  the  entrance  of  helpers  and  unskilled 
into  the  trade  and  industrial  unions  to  which  they  are  eligible."  The  Factory 
Workers'  Union,  composed  of  unskilled  machine  workers,  proposed  the  following 
amendment:  "And  also  the  entrance  of  skilled  workers  in  the  unions  of  the  unskilled 
for  which  they  are  eligible."  The  amendment  was  defeated,  and  the  executive 
committee's  recommendation  of  an  arbitration  court  was  adopted.  The  factory 
workers  thereupon  made  a  statement  re-affirming  their  claim  to  the  skilled  workers 
in  establishments  under  their  control  and  called  the  proposed  court  a  "compulsory 
arbitration  court."  The  transport  workers  and  unskilled  workers  generally  mani- 
fested a  decidedly  oppositional  tendency.  In  the  existing  unions  the  unskilled  are  a 
minority,  and  it  is  only  by  contact  with  the  unorganised  unskilled  that  they  can 
dominate  the  industrial  situation. 


144  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

power  decides  lhe_issue.  The  power  of  the  feudal 
nobility  lay  in  land ;  that  of  the  bourgeoisie  in  money, 
capital  ;^Ee  power  of  t£e~proletariat  lies  in  its  mass, 
inits  control  of  production.  This  control  makes  the 
proletariat  a  revolutionary  class,  and  determines  the[ 
conditions  of  its  struggle  and  social  supremacy.  Only 
this  power  can  "put  a  bone"  in  Socialism,  only  this 
power  can  prevent  Socialism  losing  itself  in  the  clouds 
lk>f  Utopia  or  in  the  quagmires  of  reaction.  The  strug- 
gle igji  struggle  for  power;  the  readjustment  of  Social- 
ism  is  the  organization  and  expression  of  the  actual 
revolutionary  class  in  modenTsociety.  This  class  is 
tEeTproletarian  class,  the  mass  of  unskilledTTabor  dqm- 
inatJngThelndustrial  process  of  concentrated  Capital- 
ism in  the_new  imperialistic_jepoch.  This  class 
emerges  to  consciousness,  throws  off  equally  the  dom- 
ination of  skilled  labor  and  the  small  bourgeoisie,  and 
organizes  its  power  for  the  overthrow  of  Capitalism. 
Revolutionary  Socialism  is  the  expression  and  syn- 
fthesis  of  this  development. 


IX 
CLASS  AND  NATION. 

REVOLUTIONARY  Socialism  adopts  a  policy  of  unre- 
lenting antagonism  toward  nationalism  in  fully-de- 
veloped capitalist  nations,  (only  in  pre-capitalistic 
nations  that  are  the  objectives  of  Imperialism,  such 
as  Egypt,  China  and  India,  is  nationalism  progres- 
sive). This  is  an  acceptance  of  the  fact  that  our 
attitude  towards  the  nation  is  a  decisive  factor  in  the 
readjustment  of  Socialism;  and  our  attitude  towards 
the  nation  carries  with  it  the  reconstruction  of  our 
national  and  international  policy,  not  simply  in  rela- 
tion to  war,  but  to  the  whole  scope  of  the  movement. 

The  nation  is  an  historical  product,  and  its  signi- 
ficance and  our  attitude  are  determined  by  the  pre- 
vailing historical  conditions.  It  is  this  circumstance 
that  makes  necessary  our  opposition  to  nationalism 
in  highly-developed  imperialistic  countries,  and  our 
favoring  nationalism  in  the  revolutionary  sense  in  the 
pre-capitalistic  countries  that  are  the  objectives  of 
Imperialism. 

The  nation  did  not  come  into  being  because  of 
145 


146  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

mystical  or  cultural  impulses;  it  was  the  product  of 
a  definite  process  of  economic  and  class  development, 
and  its  political  reflex.  Being  the  product  of  an  his- 
torical process,  it  is  futile  to  discuss  whether  the  na- 
tion is  or  is  not  desirable  in  itself;  the  necessity  of 
the  nation,  its  character  and  function,  are  determined 
by  the  prevailing  stage  of  social  development.  The 
nation,  as  such,  is  neither  democratic  nor  reactionary 
in  tendency,  this  depends  upon  the  historical  milieu 
and  the  social  forces  it  expresses;  under  certain  con- 
ditions the  nation  is  progressive,  under  other  condi- 
tions it  may  be  compellingly  reactionary.  An  im- 
portant point  to  be  stressed  in  our  attitude  toward  the 
nation,  accordingly,  is  the  fundamental  difference  be- 
tween the  democratic  nationalism  of  the  era  of  bour- 
geois revolution  and  the  reactionary  nationalism  of 
imperialistic  Capitalism.  Eduard  Bernstein  has  pro- 
posed that  Socialists  oppose  the  "new  capitalistic  na- 
tionalism which  culminates  in  Imperialism,"  and  not 
the  "old  ideology"  of  nationalism  "which  required  the 
self-government  of  the  nation  as  a  centre  of  culture 
among  other  similar  centres."1  Bernstein's  proposal 
neglects  the  economic  and  political  aspects  of  the 
problem  as  determined  by  the  development  of  Imper- 
ialism and  its  reactionary  character.  His  attitude  is 
abstract,  and  not  realistic.  Bernstein  admits  that  na- 
tionalism culminates  in  Imperialism,  but  a  certain 


1.     Eduard     Bernstein.     "RerUionUm     and     Nationalism,"     in     the     Netc     Reiiru 
Sepember  1,  1915. 


CLASS  AND  NATION  147 

cultural  beauty  in  nationalism  is  dear  to  his  soul: 
the  proletarian  revolution,  however,  sets  its  face  to- 
ward the  future,  not  the  past.  Imperialism  annihil- 
ates "self-government  of  the  nation"  and  its  cultural 
value,  and  the  struggle  becomes  a  struggle  for  Social- 
ism, which  solves  all  problems.  Moreover,  it  is  no 
longer  possible,  it  is  even  undesirable  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  proletarian  revolution,  to  revive  the 
democratic  ideology  of  nationalism,  since  the  social 
conditions  underlying  its  previous  existence  are  not 
now  dominant  in  the  economy  of  industrially  highly- 
developed  nations,  and  since  it  is  an  ideology  not  at 
all  compatible  with  the  emancipation  of  the  proleta- 
riat. The  emphasis  laid  upon  democratic  nationalism 
leaves  unconsidered  the  fact  that  Capitalism  has 
turned  its  back  upon  the  era  of  democratic  aspirations, 
and  that  consequently  the  contemporary  expression  of 
nationalism  is  undemocratic  and  reactionary.  And 
if  we  favor  nationalism  in  pre-capitalistic  countries, 
it  is  because  nationalism  there  is  a  revolutionary  fac- 
tor and  an  historical  necessity  in  the  struggle  against 
Imperialism:  the  necessity  of  national  wars  of  libera- 
tion is  recognized  by  Socialism,  and  colonial  upris- 
ings are  national  wars  in  the  making.  Whatever  cul- 
tural value  may  inhere  in  the  nation  will  be  retained 
and  released  for  further  development  by  the  proleta- 
rian revolution,  which  establishes  a  society  interna- 
tionally united,  but  which,  being  communistic,  decrees 


148  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

the  utmost  in  national,  racial  and  local  autonomy,  in- 
itiative and  individuality. 

What  is  the  nation,  and  what  are  its  characteristic 
forms  in  the  development  of  society? 

The  nation,  the  trend  toward  the  nation,  makes  its 
appearance  with  Capitalism.  Ascending  Capitalism 
develops  the  nation-state,  which  plays  an  important 
part  in  the  overthrow  of  Feudalism,  is,  in  fact,  one 
of  its  consequences.  The  effort  to  break  the  fetters 
placed  upon  industry  organized  on  the  basis  of  the 
city-state  leads  directly  to  the  formation  of  the  nation- 
state.  Ascending  Capitalism  requires  freedom  of 
trade  within  as  large  a  territorial  unit  as  possible, 
national  markets  exclusively  for  the  national  bour- 
geoisie to  develop  and  exploit;  a  common  system  of 
coinage,  weights  and  measures;  and  a  strong  central 
government  to  maintain  order,  foster  industry,  and 
carve  out  the  territorial  limits  of  the  nation.  The 
nation-state  develops  a  sense  of  solidarity  in  the  peo- 
ple of  a  particular  national  group,  and  firmly  estab- 
lishes national  institutions,  a  national  literature  and 
culture,  and  a  national  bourgeoisie.  The  nation  con- 
forms essentially  to  economic  and  geographical  facts ; 
while  race  and  language  have  been  convenient  expres- 
sions of  the  nation,  the  nation  has  itself  created  "race" 
and  "language,"  and  often  suppressed  or  amalga- 
mated them  in  the  fulfillment  of  its  historic  mission. 

The  early  struggles  of  ascending  Capitalism  seek 
to  create  the  national  unit  along  as  large  territorial 


CLASS  AND  NATION  149 

limits  as  possible,  while  maintaining  order  within  the 
national  domain.  The  industrialized  unit  within  the 
developing  nation  seeks  wider  markets,  new  sources 
of  raw  materials,  regions  which  it  can  bring  within 
the  sway  of  the  internal  market.  The  earlier  process 
of  expansion  is  accelerated  by  a  series  of  bloody  wars. 
All  this,  in  conjunction  with  other  favoring  circum- 
stances, including  the  growing  power  of  the  bour- 
geoisie and  the  decay  of  the  feudal  nobility,  leads  to 
the  institution  of  absolute  monarchy,  directly  trace- 
able to  the  requirements  of  the  bourgeoisie.  The  bour- 
geoisie at  this  period,  and  after,  is  revolutionary,  its 
revolutionary  expressions  assuming  vitality  in  the 
measure  that  the  carving  out  of  the  national  frontiers 
is  completed.  But,  this  task  accomplished,  the  social 
and  political  organization  expressed  in  the  dominance 
of  absolute  monarchy,  itself  based  upon  a  comprom- 
ise between  bourgeoisie  and  feudal  nobility,  becomes 
a  very  real  obstacle  to  the  development  of  the  forces 
of  production.  In  the  effort  to  destroy  this  obstacle, 
the  bourgeoisie  initiates  a  more  intensive  revolution- 
ary era,  one  result  of  which  is  the  organization  of  the 
nation  along  democratic  and  republican,  or  semi- 
republican  lines.  It  is  at  this  epoch  that  the  nation 
assumes  a  definite  and  mature  expression. 

But  the  bourgeoisie  becomes  frightened  of  its  own 
revolutionary  impulses:  bourgeois  revolutions  end  in 
dictatorships, — which  persist  or  disintegrate  as  con- 
ditions determine.  Having  accomplished  the  task  of 


150  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

destroying  the  economic  fetters  upon  its  development, 
the  bourgeoisie  becomes  largely  indifferent  to  the 
form  of  government,  as  long  as  scope  is  allowed  its 
economic  development;  questions  of  the  form  of  gov- 
ernment become  means  of  expression  for  rival  bour- 
geois group  interests,  issues  in  the  immature  struggles 
of  the  workers,  and  in  older  nations  means  of  intrigue 
for  the  remnants  of  the  feudal  nobility.  Fear  of  the 
proletariat,  competition  between  nations,  struggles  of 
various  groups  within  the  ruling  class  itself, — all 
these  and  other  circumstances  incline  the  bourgeoisie 
toward  "strong"  government,  leaving  a  merely  senti- 
mental and  theoretical  feeling  for  general  liberal 
principles.  A  compromise  is  struck  in  constitutional 
monarchy  or  an  oligarchical  republic.  In  this  pro- 
cess of  developing  the  nation,  bourgeois  revolutions 
and  liberal  ideas  are  an  incidence.  When  the  bour- 
geoisie has  completed  the  industrial  revolution  and 
established  its  supremacy,  it  discards  liberal  ideas  and 
retains  only  that  irreducible  minimum  necessary  for 
social  control.  The  minimum  varies  as  historical  re- 
quirements vary;  but  bourgeois  democracy  persists, 
until  the  era  of  Imperialism  establishes  a  new  autoc- 
racy, comparable  in  its  fundamentals,  if  not  in  its 
forms,  to  the  absolute  monarchy. 

In  nations  which  completed  their  national  bourgeois 
revolution  sufficiently  prior  to  the  era  of  modern  Im- 
perialism to  allow  their  democratic  ideas  scope  for 
ascendancy,  the  reaction  against  liberal  ideas  was  only 


CLASS  AND  NATION  151 

partially  successful.    But  in  nations  which  completed 
their  national  revolution  almost  simultaneously  with 
the  advent  of  Imperialism,  or  which  emerged  into  the 
modern  era  of  Capitalism  without  such  a  revolution, 
democracy  in  government  never  established  itself. 
Germany  is  the  classic  type  of  this  development,  with 
Japan  a  remarkably  close  parallel.     The  bourgeois 
revolution  in  Germany  in  1848  was  crushed  by  the 
cowardly  hesitancy  and  treason  of  the  middle  class, 
the  revolution  being  uncompromisingly  adhered  to 
only  by  the  developing  proletariat.  National  unity  was 
achieved  not  as  a  revolt  against  the  feudal  class,  but 
in  a  compromise  with  the  feudal  class  of  junkers. 
Bourgeois  democracy  did  not  materialize,  and  was 
lost.    The  industrial  revolution  strengthened,  instead 
of  weakening,  the  monarchical  power.    But  the  reac- 
tion against  democracy  might  have  proven  temporary, 
as  in  previous  periods,  (the  forces  of  "democracy" 
grew  steadily,  a  whole  movement,  the  Social  Democ- 
racy, being  devoted  almost  solely  to  the  task  of  com- 
pleting the  bourgeois  revolution,)  had  not  a  new  set 
of  circumstances  intervened  which,  instead  of  finding 
an  expression  in  the  overthrow  of  autocracy,  found 
its  interests  in  the  perpetuation  of  autocracy, — the 
advent  of  Imperialism.    Germany  was  united  in  1871, 
and  a  decade  later  its  imperialistic  era  began;  and 
this  let  loose  all  those  reactionary  tendencies  which 
lead  to  a  capitalist  revival  of  autocracy  in  one  form  or 
another.    Where  "democratic"  nations  had  to  create  a 


152  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

new  autocracy,  Germany  simply  adapted  its  prevail- 
ing autocracy  to  the  new  conditions. 

Imperialism  assumes  objectively  the  form  of  a 
struggle  for  the  control  of  territory  rich  in  natural 
resources  and  capable  of  being  industrially  revolu- 
tionized by  an  industrial  nation  undertaking  the  work 
of  "development."  Capitalism  in  the  imperialistic 
era  turns  in  on  itself  and  in  a  certain  way  reproduces 
the  period  of  its  youth,  when  it  struggled  for  a  similar 
territorial  objective, — with  this  difference,  however: 
that  where  the  former  struggle  created  the  nation,  the 
contemporary  struggle  negates  the  nation.2  This  pro- 
cess carries  with  it  an  accessory  fact:  as  the  earlier 
struggles  of  Capitalism  produced  war  and  absolute 
monarchy,  so  today  Imperialism  not  only  produces 
war,  but  a  tendency  toward  "strong"  government, — 
autocracy  disguised  under  a  variety  of  political  forms. 

There  is  an  assumption  among  some  Socialists  that, 
while  the  nation  is  the  particular  creation  and  form 
of  expression  of  the  bourgeoisie,  the  nation  is  just  as 
necessary  as  the  class,  that  it  is  a  separate  factor,  and 
that  the  struggles  of  nation  against  nation  as  such 
function  as  dynamically  as  class  struggles.  History 


2  The  negation  of  the  nation  is  not  peculiar  to  German  Imperialism :  it 
is  an  attribute  of  all  Imperialism.  An  Italian  imperialist  declaims  as  follows : 
"It  remains  for  us  to  conquer.  It  is  said  that  all  the  other  territories  are  'occupied.' 
But  there  have  never  been  any  territories  res  nullius.  Strong  nations,  or  nation* 
on  the  path  of  progress,  conquer  nations  in  decadence."  British  domination  in 
Egypt  was  established  at  a  period  when  Egypt  was  on  the  verge  of  a  national 
revival,  and  the  British  bave  ruthlessly  suppressed  national  aspirations  and  unity, 
as  they  have  in  India.  Turkey  has  the  necessary  materials  for  becoming  '•  a 
strong  modern  nation ;  but  the  Great  Powers  have  consciously  and  brutally  kept  it 
in  a  state  of  decadence, — all  because  of  imperialistic  interests.  This  is  the 
identical  policy  being  pursued  in  China. 


CLASS  AND  NATION  153 

refutes  the  assumption:  national  struggles  are  a  form 
of  expression  of  the  class  struggle. 

The  historical  generalizations  concerning  this  prob- 
lem may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

1. — The  nation  is  the  expression  of  a  particular 
social  and  economic  system  and  the  class  representing 
that  system, — historically,  the  era  of  competitive 
Capitalism  and  the  bourgeoisie. 

2. — The  course  of  a  nation  is  determined  by  the 
development  of  the  economics  of  its  social  system  and 
ruling  class. 

3. — Competing  nations  represent  competing  social- 
economic  systems  and  ruling  class  interests. 

4. — The  hegemony  of  a  nation  at  any  particular 
epoch  represents  the  hegemony  of  the  most  highly 
developed  social  system,  consequently  most  powerful 
ruling  class. 

5. — The  struggle  between  nations — national  strug- 
gles— are  an  expression  of  a  struggle  between  rival 
ruling  classes  using  the  nation  in  waging  their  dis- 
putes. 

6. — In  the  era  of  Imperialism,  these  struggles  be- 
tween nations  become  active  aspects  of  the  class  strug- 
gle against  the  proletariat,  as  "national"  imperialis- 
tic wars  have  a  general  tendency  to  increase  and  in- 
tensify the  exploitation  of  the  proletariat  and  break 
up  the  proletarian  movement  by  strengthening  the 
class  position  of  the  capitalist.  The  ultimate  objective 
of  Imperialism  is  world  power,  and  this  power  is  to 


154  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

exploit  more  intensively  the  proletariat.  While,  ac- 
cordingly, Imperialism  and  imperialistic  wars  are 
struggles  of  bourgeoisie  against  bourgeoisie,  they  are 
simultaneously  and  more  fundamentally  a  single 
struggle  against  the  proletariat. 

These  are  the  generalizations;  the  practice  is  not 
as  concrete.  Social  progress  is  uneven ;  nations  do  not 
develop  simultaneously,  although  their  development  is 
along  essentially  parallel  lines;  remnants  of  the  pre- 
ceding social  system  persist  into  the  new  and  affect 
events;  a  ruling  class  often  disputes  supremacy  with, 
its  predecessor  or  potential  successor,  and  is  itself 
often  divided  into  warring  groups;  nor  is  Capitalism 
static,  its  various  stages  of  development  being  a  dis- 
tinct factor  and  affecting  the  course  of  events.  Then, 
again,  the  nation,  a  product  of  historic  factors,  be- 
comes itself  an  historic  factor,  and  at  times  must  be 
considered  as  a  distinct  category.  But  all  the  historic 
factors  are  synthesized  in  the  dominance  of  class  and 
the  struggle  of  class  against  class,  and  are  fundament- 
ally determined  by  the  process  of  the  class  struggle. 

The  series  of  bloody  wars  which  signalized  the  ad- 
vent of  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  nation-state  was  essen- 
tially the  expression  of  the  class  interests  of  the  bour- 
geoisie in  conflict  with  Feudalism.  The  struggles  of 
many  years  between  France  and  England,  marked  by 
the  battles  of  Crecy,  Poitiers  and  Agincourt,  were 
fundamentally  a  class  struggle  in  the  form  of  war 
between  the  rising  bourgeoisie  of  England  struggling 


CLASS  AND  NATION  155 

for  territorial  conquest  and  markets,  and  the  Feudal- 
ism of  France, — the  triumph  of  the  English  yeomanry 
over  the  flower  of  the  French  nobility  is  symbolical 
of  the  character  of  the  wars.  It  is  true  that  England 
and  France  at  this  period  had  much  in  common,  his- 
torically, both  being  at  the  era  of  territorial  consolida- 
tion, politically  a  distinguishing  feature  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  nation.  But  England  was  much  more  ad- 
vanced than  France  economically,  its  bourgeoisie  hav- 
ing acquired  a  larger  share  of  power,  the  commercial 
interests  stronger;  while  in  France  Feudalism  was  still 
largely  unshaken  by  the  bourgeoisie.  The  flourishing 
manufacturing  interests  of  England  were  encouraged 
and  protected  by  the  government,  and  the  extensive 
trade  in  wool  with  the  manufacturing  towns  of  Flan- 
ders was  a  direct  cause  of  the  wars.  Undoubtedly, 
these  wars  were  not  purely  capitalist  wars,  feudal 
interests  being  involved;  but  what  distinguishes  them 
from  previous  wars  and  gives  them  their  distinctive 
historic  character  was  the  emergence  of  bourgeois 
interests.  The  national  struggles  of  the  era  of  the 
Reformation  were  another  expression  of  the  interests 
of  the  class  struggle  of  the  bourgeoisie.  The  Refor- 
mation was  a  revolt  against  the  "universal  empire"  of 
Rome  and  a  factor  in  the  development  of  the  nation, 
a  product  of  the  national  impulses  of  the  oncoming 
bourgeois  social  system ;  the  wars  it  let  loose  were  na- 
tional wars  waged  to  destroy  the  moral,  political  and 
economic  system  of  Feudalism  as  synthesized  in  the 


156  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

Papacy:  they  were  wars  that  promoted  bourgeois  class 
interests  in  the  process  of  securing  social  supremacy. 

The  wars  of  the  French  Revolution  offer  the  finest 
illustration  of  the  essentially  class  character  of  the 
nation  and  its  wars.  These  wars  were  an  extension 
and  continuation  of  the  struggle  waged  by  the  bour- 
geoisie within  France  against  the  absolute  monarchy 
and  Feudalism.  The  revolution  that  overthrew  the 
monarchy  and  its  remaining  feudal  relations  struck 
a  terrific  blow  at  monarchy  and  Feudalism  throughout 
Europe.  Clearly  and  absolutely,  the  national  strug- 
gles that  followed  were  determined  by  class  interests 
— the  class  interests  of  the  bourgeoisie,  incarnated  in 
France,  in  conflict  with  the  class  interests  of  Feudal- 
ism, incarnated  in  monarchical  Europe.  The  class 
struggle  waged  by  the  bourgeoisie  in  France  by  means 
of  revolution  was  converted  into  an  international  class 
struggle  waged  by  means  of  war.  The  revolutionary 
and  Napoleonic  wars  were  the  death-grapple  of  two 
social-economic  systems  struggling  for  supremacy.3 

The  class  struggle  is  a  struggle  between  a  dominant 
economic  system  and  its  ruling  class,  and  a  rising 


3  The  supremacy  of  Napoleon  and  the  national  uprisings  that  finally  accom- 
plished his  overthrow,  do  not  alter  this  interpretation.  Under  Napoleon  the 
struggle  gradually  assumed  a  new  form:  the  class  interests  and  national  interests 
of  the  European  bourgeoisie,  which  the  Napoleonic  wars  had  stirred  into  life  by 
riding  rough-shod  over  feudal  institutions,  fought  against  the  plans  of  France 
to  establish  an  hegemony  in  Europe  and  subordinate  other  nations  to  its  interests. 
The  very  factor  that  under-lay  the  Napoleonic  epoch,  the  destruction  of  feudal 
relations  wherever  the  French  armies  conquered,  at  the  same  time  developed  the 
force  that  overthrew  Napoleon — the  more  definite  emergence  of  the  nation  and 
its  bourgeois  character.  At  this  stage,  the  struggle  was  essentially  between 
rival  groups  of  the  same  ruling  class  in  different  nations:  the  struggle  between 
England  and  Napoleon  was  of  this  character,  England  participating  in  the  wars 
against  Napoleon  not  to  conserve  monarchy  in  Europe,  but  to  protect  its  indus- 
trial and  commercial  supremacy. 


CLASS  AND  NATION  157 

economic  system  and  its  class  representative.  The 
national  struggles  cited  were  of  this  character, — 
struggles  between  Feudalism  and  Capitalism,  each 
seeking  control,  a  struggle,  moreover,  which  was  pro- 
ceeding equally  within  the  states  representing  feudal 
interests.  But  once  all  states  become  bourgeois  na- 
tions, the  national  struggles  become  struggles  of  the 
same  ruling  class  for  international  supremacy, — na- 
tional bourgeoisie  against  national  bourgeoisie,  as  in 
the  great  clash  between  Napoleonic  France  and  Eng- 
land. This  struggle  between  bourgeois  nations  waged 
in  the  form  of  war  is  as  much  an  aspect  of  the  class 
struggle  as  the  struggles  between  groups  of  the  ruling 
class  within  a  nation.  This  is  particularly  so  in  the 
struggles  of  Imperialism. 

An  important  phase  of  Capitalism  is  the  expropria- 
tion of  the  capitalist  by  the  capitalist.  In  national 
economics  this  expropriation  proceeds  by  means  of 
concentration  of  industry  and  centralization  of  capi- 
tal. But  Capitalism  reaches  a  point  where,  along  with 
other  factors,  this  process  of  expropriation  develops 
into  a  higher  form.  Expropriation  and  concentration 
along  national  lines  become  insufficient;  big  capital 
and  small  capital  compromise  through  monopoly 
and  State  Capitalism;  and  instead  of  the  expro- 
priation of  the  individual  capitalist  within  the  nation 
there  comes  the  struggle  to  expropriate  the  capitalist 
class  of  another  nation  by  means  of  diplomatic  pres- 
sure, Imperialism  and  war.  The  process  of  expro- 


158  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

priation  assumes  a  new  aspect:  it  becomes  dominantly 
international,  instead  of  national. 

The  national  struggles  of  Imperialism,  accordingly, 
are  struggles  of  class  against  class,  of  bourgeoisie 
against  bourgeoisie  for  the  robbery  and  mastery  of 
the  world. 

But  these  struggles  are  equally  and  more  dynamic- 
ally aspects  of  the  proletarian  class  struggle,  impos- 
ing the  neccesity  of  an  uncompromising  war  of  the 
proletariat  against  Imperialism  and  the  imperialistic 
nation.  The  struggle  of  nation  against  nation  con- 
verts itself  into  a  struggle  of  proletariat  against  bour- 
geoisie, in  which  the  relative  class  power  decides  the 
issue.  A  victorious  imperialistic  nation  strengthens 
its  class  power  not  only  against  a  rival  bourgeoisie, 
but  as  against  its  own  proletariat  and  the  proletariat 
in  the  countries  it  has  acquired  for  "development." 
The  "penetration"  of  capital  in  new  territory  subjects 
new  peoples,  a  new  proletariat,  to  the  rule  of  capital, 
to  the  system  of  capitalist  exploitation;  and  the 
significance  of  this  new  system  is  not  simply  in  added 
numbers  of  exploitable  workers,  but  in  an  increase 
of  power  of  the  capitalist,  an  altering  of  the  relations 
of  class  power  in  the  older  capitalist  countries  to  the 
disadvantage  of  the  proletariat.  It  is  quite  obvious 
that  a  general  imperialistic  war  oppresses  the  prole- 
tariat; but  this  general  war  was  prepared  by  a  series 
of  minor,  colonial  wars,  by  years  of  imperialistic  ex- 
ploitation, during  a  period  when  the  workers  of  capi- 


CLASS  AND  NATION  159 

talistic  nations  tolerated  the  subjection  of  colonial 
peoples  because  of  a  smug  and  illusory  sense  of 
accruing  "prosperity."  The  general  capitalist  ten- 
dency is  to  impose  the  rule  of  capital  over  the  whole 
world;  the  ultimate  stake  of  Imperialism  is  world 
power,  and  this  power  depends  upon  the  subjection 
and  exploitation  of  the  proletariat,  furthering  and  in- 
tensifying this  subjection  and  exploitation.  A  general 
imperialistic  war  is  fundamentally,  accordingly,  a 
phase  of  the  class  struggle  waged  by  the  capitalist 
class  against  the  workers  of  the  world. 

In  two  senses,  then,  are  national  struggles  today 
class  struggles:  they  are,  incidentally,  struggles  of 
bourgeois  class  against  bourgeois  class  for  world  su- 
premacy; and  they  are,  fundamentally,  struggles  for 
the  subjection  of  the  proletariat. 

As  an  expression  of  the  bourgeoisie,  the  nation  must 
conform  to  the  requirements  of  bourgeois  supremacy. 
Imperialism  is  a  revolt  against  the  national  fetters 
placed  upon  the  development  of  the  productive  forces. 
Capitalism  has  developed  a  world  economy,  the  parts 
of  which  are  dependent  each  upon  the  other.  The 
world  is  agonizing  in  the  contradiction  of  a  world 
economy  which  national  states  are  trying  to  bend  to 
their  purposes  to  promote  the  profits  of  the  national 
bourgeoisie.  The  only  method  conceivable  to  Capi- 
talism is  Imperialism, — the  extension  of  the  limits  of 
the  nation  by  fire  and  sword  and  the  annexation  of  as 
much  new  territory  as  possible  within  a  particular 


160  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

nation.  But  when  this  is  done,  the  nation  ceases  as  a 
nation,  and  a  political  monstrosity  takes  its  place.  The 
great,  the  overwhelming  fact  is  that  the  nation  has 
out-lived  its  usefulness,  that  it  is  now  decrepit  as  an 
economic  and  political  entity.  The  bourgeoisie  itself 
is  in  revolt  against  the  nation,  its  own  particular  pro- 
duct: and  against  international  Imperialism  the  prole- 
tariat must  oppose  international  Socialism. 

Imperialism  fundamentally  excludes  the  demo- 
cratic federation  of  nations.  The  increasing  volume 
of  surplus-values  develops  the  capitalist  necessity  of 
rivalry  and  destruction.  Imperialistic  Capitalism  is 
compelled  to  discover  new  means  of  waste,  of  destruc- 
tion, it  must  throw  the  world  into  continual  and  in- 
creasingly gigantic  struggles  to  perpetuate  itself. 
Capitalism  has  generated  the  forces  of  international- 
ity;  it  remains  for  Socialism,  however,  to  effectively 
organize  the  forces  into  a  world-state  through  prole- 
tarian communism.  It  is  inconceivable  that  Capital- 
ism should  produce  an  actual  unity  of  nations,  which 
would  have  to  include  those  nations  and  territory  that 
are  objectives  of  Imperialism,  and  pre-suppose  the 
dissolution  of  the  nation  in  its  present  bourgeois  form 
and  the  abandonment  of  national-imperialistic  inter- 
ests,— and  that,  clearly,  means  the  end  of  capitalist 
domination.  Identically  as  with  parliamentary  gov- 
ernment, the  nation  is  the  particular  form  of  expres- 
sion of  Capitalism.  Capitalism  finds  its  essential  ex- 
pression in  the  nation  and  parliamentary  government; 


CLASS  AND  NATION  161 

the  proletariat  in  the  world-state  and  industrial  gov- 
ernment. 

The  nation,  or  nationality,  will  remain  as  a  cul- 
tural, ideological  and  psychological  fact;  its  economic 
and  political  necessity  has  passed  away.  And  it  is 
this  cultural  and  psychological  fact  that  confuses  the 
problem  of  the  nation  in  the  eyes  of  many.  The  So- 
cialist does  not  deny  that  the  nation  has  performed 
a  cultural  mission,  but  as  a  phase  of  the  general  pro- 
cess of  human  development.  Whatever  of  cultural 
value  may  inhere  in  the  nation,  or  nationality,  will 
persist  under  Socialism,  just  as  the  proletarian  revolu- 
tion, in  annihilating  Capitalism,  does  not  annihilate 
that  which  is  of  value  in  Capitalism.  Socialism  is  the 
cultural  heir  of  the  ages.  At  the  present  moment, 
however,  the  greatest  menace  to  these  cultural  con- 
tributions lies  in  the  perpetuation  of  the  nation  in 
its  bourgeois,  imperialistic  form,  symbol  of  a  decrepit 
industrial  and  social  system. 

In  the  coming  decisive  struggles  against  Capitalism, 
revolutionary  Socialism  recognizes  and  emphasizes 
that  the  class  struggle  determines  all  our  action — that 
the  national  ideology  is  a  fetter  upon  the  emancipation 
of  the  proletariat — and  that  the  Social  Revolution  is 
international  in  scope  and  purpose. 


X 

PROBLEMS  OF  STATE  CAPITALISM. 

IMPERIALISTIC  State  Capitalism  emphasizes  the  fact 
of  the  state,  of  government,  being  an  economic  agency 
of  the  ruling  class.  State  and  capitalist  industry, 
government  and  ruling  class,  become  one  and  in- 
divisible. This  was  not  completely  the  case  in  the 
era  of  competitive  Capitalism.  The  influence  of  per- 
sisting feudal  remnants  and  bourgeois  class  immatur- 
ity, compelled  the  state  to  adopt  a  policy,  so  to  say, 
of  maintaining  the  "balance  of  power"  between  rival 
groups  of  the  ruling  class  itself,  a  state  of  things  deter- 
mining the  earlier  manifestations  of  the  workers' 
struggles;  and  precisely  because  of  these  divisions 
the  state  was  occasionally  in  the  position  of  asserting 
its  supremacy  as  against  the  diversity  of  ruling  class 
interests.  Today,  the  conditions  of  Imperialism  have 
created  a  bloc  of  ruling  class  interests,  an  amalgam 
of  Capitalism  that  functions  through  the  state  and 
which  makes  the  state  completely  and  consciously  the 
agency  of  dominant  Capitalism  and  the  groups  it  has 
forced  into  its  service.  State  Capitalism,  accordingly, 

162 


PROBLEMS  OF  STATE  CAPITALISM          163 

is  not  an  abandonment  of  Capitalism:  it  is  a  strength- 
ening of  Capitalism — Capitalism  at  the  climax  of  its 
development. 

The  larger  part  of  Socialist  propaganda  and  prac- 
tice in  the  past  have  been  making  for  State  Capitalism, 
often  euphoniously  and  misleadingly  designated  as 
State  Socialism.  Whenever  the  state  nationalized  an 
industry,  whenever  the  state  imposed  its  control  over 
industry,  the  Socialist  majority  naively  accepted  this 
as  an  abandonment  of  Capitalism,  as  a  symptom  of 
the  growing  importance  of  Socialism  and  the  trans- 
formation of  Capitalism  into  Socialism.  Simple 
souls!  What  was  passing  was  not  Capitalism,  but 
the  competitive  laissez  faire  era  of  Capitalism;  what 
came  was  not  Socialism  nor  an  "installment"  of  So- 
cialism, but  imperialistic  State  Capitalism,  the  most 
brutal  and  typical  expression  of  capitalist  power  and 
supremacy.  Socialist  propaganda,  including  largely 
Socialist  thought,  did  not  adapt  itself  to  the  develop- 
ment of  Capitalism,  did  not  adapt  itself  to  the  new 
conditions  and  requirements  arising  out  of  this  de- 
velopment. Socialism  is  not  state  ownership  or  man- 
agement of  industry,  but  the  opposite:  Socialism  an- 
nihilates the  state.  Not  even  should  Socialism  con- 
quer the  state  and  maintain  itself,  proceeding  to 
nationalize  industry,  would  that  be  Socialism:  when 
Socialism  conquers,  its  first  act  is  to  abolish  the  state, 
its  parliamentary  regime  and  forms  of  activity.  So- 
cialism, it  must  be  emphasized,  annihilates  the  state; 


164  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

industry  is  not  transformed  into  the  state,  but  state 
and  industry,  as  now  constituted,  are  transformed  into 
proletarian  communism,  functioning  industrially  and 
socially  through  new  administrative  norms  of  the  or- 
ganized producers,  and  not  through  the  state.1 

Revolutionary  Socialism  rejects  the  bourgeois 
policy  of  state  ownership,  rejects  State  Capitalism  as 
a  phase  of  Socialism,  and  insists  upon  proletarian 
management  through  industrial  communism. 

The  conditions  of  State  Capitalism  emphasize  this 
revolutionary  policy;  the  antagonism  between  state 
and  Socialism  is  intensified,  compelling  the  separa- 
tion of  Socialism  from  an  industrial  policy  of  the 
imperialistic  state,  and  in  this  sense  directly  promotes 
the  revolution. 

State  Capitalism  is  not  Socialism  and  never  can 
become  Socialism.  It  may  promote  the  coming  of 
Socialism,  but  only  indirectly  through  intensifying  the 
antagonism  of  the  proletariat  toward  the  bourgeois 
state,  and  by  compelling  Socialism  to  adopt  a  policy 
of  industrial  communism.  The  "nationalization"  of 
industry  is  a  Socialist  measure,  a  measure  making  for 


1  The  growth  of  state  ownership  in  Europe  and  the  complete  lack  of  any 
developing  Socialism,  compelled  a  pondering  of  the  problem.  In  a  lecture  on 
"Socialism  versus  the  State,"  (reprinted  in  the  New  Review,  August,  1914)  Emile 
Vandervelde,  prominent  opportunist  and  now  a  social-patriot,  said:  "We  see, 
with  Guesde,  as  with  Marx  and  Engels,  that  there  is  ~c>  confusion  possible  between 
Socialism  and  state  ownership.  They  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  capitalist 
state,  except  to  fight  it.  If  they  wish  to  master  it,  it  is  only  that  they  may  abolish 
it.  At  most,  they  would  use  it  during  a  transitory  period  of  working  class  dictator- 
ship." The  latter  statement  is  urtrue;  Marx  recognized,  and  the  proletarian  revolu- 
tion in  Russia  confirms  the  fact,  that  the  proletariat  cannot  seize  hold  of  the 
bourgeois  state  and  use  it  for  purposes  of  the  revolution ;  the  state  is  destroyed, 
and  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  functions  through  a  new  "state,"  as  in 
the  Soviets,  which  is  simply  the  organized  workers  and  peasants,  and  no  other 
class  in  society. 


PROBLEMS  OF  STATE  CAPITALISM  165 

Socialism,  only  when  introduced  as  a  temporary  meas- 
ure of  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  the  first  act 
of  which  is  to  lay  a  dictatorial  hand  upon  the  forces 
of  production  in  the  process  of  crushing  the  old  regime 
and  introducing  the  communist  system  of  Socialism. 
State  Capitalism  makes  for  Socialism  in  this  sense, 
as  with  Imperialism,  that  it  climaxes  the  development 
of  Capitalism  and  broadens  and  deepens  class  an- 
tagonisms; but  as  Imperialism  must  necessarily  be 
struggled  against  for  its  overthrow,  so  State  Capital- 
ism is  a  factor  in  the  coming  of  Socialism  by  arousing 
a  new  and  more  intense  struggle  against  the  whole 
of  bourgeois  society.  The  institutional  developments 
of  Capitalism  do  not  bring,  they  never  can  bring,  So- 
cialism; they  function  in  the  process  simply  as  they 
develop  the  proletarian  struggle  against  these  institu- 
tions and  all  institutions  of  capitalist  society.  State 
Capitalism  is  not  Socialism  and  never  can  become  So- 
cialism precisely  because  it  is  a  state  proposition; 
Socialism  is  determined  in  a  struggle  to  annihilate 
the  state  as  a  necessary  instrument  of  revolution  and 
as  a  means  of  developing  the  new  communist  society 
which  negates  the  "state"  in  the  bourgeois  sense. 

State  Capitalism  accentuates  and  sharpens  class 
divisions,  by  arraying  against  the  industrial  prole- 
tariat all  other  class  groups  merged  and  expressed  in 
the  new  state.  As  against  the  general  reactionary 
mass  of  ruling  class  interests,  the  proletariat  stands  as 
a  class  thrown  by  the  very  conditions  of  its  existence 


166  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

against  the  unified  capitalist  regime.  State  Capitalism 
regulates  and  directs  capital  and  labor;  it  seeks  to 
realize  the  Utopia  of  peace  between  the  classes,  of  the 
abolition,  or  at  least  suspension,  of  the  class  struggle.2 
This  regulation  may,  in  a  measure,  prove  onerous  to 
the  capitalist,  but  is  accepted  as  the  necessary  condi- 
tion for  the  progressive  promotion  of  his  interests; 
it  proves  in  large  measure  onerous  to  the  proletariat, 
and  as  it  cannot  be  merged  in  State  Capitalism  the 
proletariat  is  driven  to  revolt  against  the  state  and 
Capitalism  as  unified  in  the  new  scheme  of  things. 

The  policy  of  revolutionary  Socialism  is  neither  to 
oppose  nor  to  advocate  the  coming  of  State  Capitalism. 
Either  policy  would  be  futile,  and  reactionary.  State 
Capitalism  is  a  fact  and  Socialism  must  adjust  itself  to 
the  fact.  Socialism  organizes  the  aggressive  struggle 
against  State  Capitalism  as  the  synthetic  expression  of 
the  whole  capitalist  regime.  The  problem  of  revolu- 
tionary Socialism  is  to  develop  the  consciousness  and 
class  power  of  the  proletariat,  to  throw  the  proletariat 
against  Capitalism  in  struggle  after  struggle  deter- 
mined by  the  immediate  and  ultimate  requirements  of 
revolutionary  action.  The  antagonism  between  State 
Capitalism  and  Socialism  is  emphasized  by  sharply 
distinguishing  between  the  two  and  by  the  action  of 

2  President  Wilson,  during  the  early  days  of  his  first  administration,  used 
the  phrase,  "The  Constitution  of  Peace,"  as  covering  a  policy  of  class  harmony. 
The  harmony  did  not  materialize;  it  was  during  this  administration  that  the  bloody 
struggles  occurred  at  Ludlow,  the  Mesaba  Range,  and  Passaic  through  strikes 
crushed  ruhlessly  by  armed  force.  Moreover,  not  even  the  President's  declarations 
against  Big  Capital  were  put  into  practice;  the  administration  was  compelled  to 
accept  the  fact  of  the  dominance  of  Big  Capital,  the  basic  factor  in  any  program 
of  State  Capitalism. 


PROBLEMS  OF  STATE  CAPITALISM          167 

the  proletariat  itself.  The  policy  of  State  Capitalism 
of  regulating  labor,  and  in  this  way  to  prevent  if  not 
actually  prohibit  strikes,  rouses  the  action  of  the  work- 
ers; a  strike  under  these  conditions  becomes  a  strike 
directed  against  the  state;  a  strike,  accordingly,  be- 
comes a  class  act  of  political  importance.  More  and 
more  it  becomes  clear  that  strikes  are  not  simply  di- 
rected against  the  employer  or  against  the  state,  but 
against  the  unified  capitalist  regime  as  organized  in 
State  Capitalism,  and  that  it  is  this  regime  against 
which  the  struggle  must  be  consciously  directed.  The 
process  of  state  regulation  is  met  by  the  Socialist  pro- 
cess of  arousing  in  the  proletariat  the  consciousness 
of  its  control  of  industry.  The  proletariat  sets  itself 
against  the  state,  the  state  against  the  proletariat;  the 
struggle  becomes  more  intense  and  general,  the  an- 
tagonisms more  acute  and  irreconcilable.  As  the 
state  imposes  its  control  over  industry,  the  proletariat 
challenges  that  control,  contests  the  authority  and 
force  of  the  state,  and  itself  gradually  acquires  the 
power  of  control  over  industry.  The  challenge  under 
the  impulse  of  events  develops  into  the  Social  Revolu- 
tion. 

The  Social  Revolution  becomes  a  fact  when  the 
proletariat  has  acquired  sufficient  consciousness  of  its 
control  over  industry  to  establish  that  control  in  prac- 
tice. The  proletariat,  accordingly,  develops  a  state 
within  the  state,  develops  the  norms  of  the  future  So- 
cialist society  within  the  structure  of  Capitalism.  The 


168  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

central  factor  in  this  is  the  industrial  organization  of 
the  proletariat,  partly  actual  through  industrial 
unions,  partly  ideological  through  the  conception  of 
the  necessity  of  overthrowing  the  state  and  substitut- 
ing for  it  a  society  of  communistically  organized  pro- 
ducers,— the  proletariat  functioning  in  industry  and 
becoming  aware  of  its  strategic  power.3  It  is  this 
proletarian  control,  organized  and  unorganized,  that 
constitutes  equally  the  force  for  the  overthrow  of  State 
Capitalism  and  its  social  system,  and  the  basis  of  the 
Socialist  society  of  the  future. 

A  lure  that  will  be  offered  the  workers  is  the 
struggle  to  "democratize"  State  Capitalism  through 
Socialist  parliamentary  activity.  This  constitutes  in 
a  new  form  the  old  conception  of  "growing  into"  So- 
cialism,— transforming  State  Capitalism  into  Social- 
ism by  "democratizing"  the  government,  placing  it 
in  the  hands  of  "the  people."  This  policy  is  equally 
condemnable  as  strategy  and  tactics, — as  strategy,  it 
dispenses  with  the  necessity  of  overthrowing  the  state 
as  an  indispensable  phase  of  the  Social  Revolution ;  as 
tactics,  it  strengthens  the  state  and  weakens  the  prole- 

3  Capitalism  is  the  la.st  expression  of  Class  Rule.  The  economic  foundation  of 
Class  Rule  is  the  private  ownership  of  the  necessaries  for  production.  The  Social 
structure,  or  garb,  of  Class  Rule  is  the  political  State — that  social  structure  in 
which  Government  is  an  organ  separate  and  apart  from  production,  with  no 
vital  function  other  than  the  maintenance  of  the  supremacy  of  the  ruling  class. 
The  overthrow  of  Class  Rule  means  the  overthrow  of  the  political  State,  and 
its  substitution  with  the  Industrial  Social  Ordcr.under  which  the  necessaries  for 
production  are  collectively  owned  and  operated  by  and  for  all  the  people.  .  .  . 
Industrial  Unionism  is  clear  upon  the  goal — the  substitution  of  the  political  State 
with  the  Industrial  Government.  .  .  .  While  Class  Rule  casts  the  nation,  and, 
with  the  nation,  its  government,  in  the  mold  of  territory,  Industrial  Unionism 
casts  the  nation  in  the  mold  of  useful  occupations,  and  transforms  the  nation'* 
government  into  the  representations  from  these.  .  .  .  Industrial  Unionism  is 
the  Socialist  Republic  in  the  making;  and  the  goal  once  reached,  the  Industrial 
Union  is  the  Socialist  Republic  in  operation. — Daniel  De  Leon,  Industrial  Unionism. 


PROBLEMS  OF  STATE  CAPITALISM          169 

tariat  by  obscuring  the  fact  that  its  power  resides  in 
control  of  the  industrial  process.  Moreover,  State 
Capitalism  is  fundamentally  and  necessarily  undemo- 
cratic ;  it  cannot  be  democratized,  it  must  be  abolished 
by  the  proletarian  revolution.  The  coming  of  Social- 
ism is  a  process  of  violent  and  implacable  struggles, 
not  a  dress  parade  of  amicable  transformation.  The 
concept  of  "transformation"  in  practise  doesn't  trans- 
form Capitalism,  it  transforms  the  proletarian  move- 
ment into  a  caricature  of  Socialism  and  a  prop  of 
Capitalism.  The  proletariat  is  concerned,  not  in- 
directly with  the  forms  of  administration  of  State 
Capitalism,  but  directly  in  developing  its  forces  for 
the  immediate  struggle  against  and  the  ultimate  over- 
throw of  State  Capitalism.  Socialism  is  not  a  struggle 
for  democracy;  it  is  a  struggle  for  proletarian  power. 
The  only  democracy  compatible  with  the  requirements 
of  the  proletariat  is  the  democracy  of  communist  So- 
cialism, a  democracy  arising  out  of  the  total  destruc- 
tion of  bourgeois  democracy.  The  only  immediate 
democracy  that  concerns  the  proletariat  is  the  democ- 
racy of  its  dynamic  struggles,  the  democracy  of  its 
own  industrial  unions  and  mass  action. 

Revolutionary  Socialism  rejects  "co-operation" 
with  the  capitalist,  in  industry  as  in  politics.  One 
phase  of  State  Capitalism  is  the  policy  of  trying  to 
maintain  industrial  peace,  and  this  is  attempted  al- 
ternately by  coercion  and  cajolery.  One  means  of 
cajolery  is  an  arrangement  by  which  the  workers  may 


170  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

"co-operate"  with  the  employers  in  the  consideration 
of  matters  affecting  a  particular  industry  or  factory.4 
The  state  tries  to  compel  this  co-operation,  making  it 
an  impliedly  compulsory  affair,  and  it  becomes  the 
function  of  the  government  to  bring  the  workers  under 
the  sway  of  the  capitalist  in  ways  that  strike  at  the 
independent  action  of  the  proletariat.  Autocracy  in 
government  is  supplemented  by  a  sham  democracy 
in  industry,  by  apparently  giving  the  workers  a  share 
in  the  regulation  of  their  conditions,  but  which  ac- 
tually is  an  illusion,  as  the  power  of  the  employers 
sets  it  at  naught.  The  purpose  is  to  run  the  militant 
spirit  of  the  workers  into  the  ground,  to  disorganize 
their  independent  action. 

A  development  of  this  character  is  the  proposal, 
recently  adopted  by  the  British  government,  for  the 


4.  Scheme  after  scheme  is  being  tried  by  the  capitalist  class  to  insure  a  satisfied 
and  subject  class  of  workers.  Profit-sharing,  welfare  work,  and  other  schemes 
having  proven  miserable  failures,  and  democracy  novr  being  the  slogan  of  the 
day,  "industrial  democracy"  is  being  used  instead.  As  political  democracy  is 
simply  a  form  of  authority  of  the  bourgeoisie  over  the  workers,  so  this  "industrial 
democracy"  perpetuates  the  authority  of  the  employers  over  the  workers.  This 
"industrial  democracy"  assumes  the  grandiloquent  iorm  of  a  "republic  of  labor." 
And,  peculiarly,  this  "republic"  is  being  introduced  by  the  Rockefeller  interests, 
which  ruthlessly  refuse  to  tolerate  unionism  or  any  independent  action  of  the 
workers.  The  "republic"  will  be  introduced  in  the  plants  of  the  Standard  Oil 
Co.  of  New  Jersey  on  April  1.  It  means  that  the  workers  will  select,  by  secret 
ballot,  a  committee  of  their  own  number  "who  will  treat  with  the  directors  of 
the  company  in  all  matters  concerning  health,  conditions,  wages  and  situation  of 
labor."  The  New  York  Mail  says:  "While  in  the  last  analysis  the  plan  fails  to 
give  the  men  real  control  over  their  own  working  conditions,  it  has  been  tried 
in  Colorado  with  success  and  has  given  the  men  there  a  practical  labor  government, 
maintained  by  themselves."  And:  "In  Colorado,  once  the  scene  of  labor  troubles 
of  magnitude,  the  Standard  Oil  Companies  have  found  the  new  plan  has  assured 
a  co-operation  which  has  almost  automatically  ended  serious  disputes."  The  "repub- 
lic of  labor"  leaves  the  workers  a  disorganized  mass,  wasting  their  energy  in  the 
election  of  committees  and  making  recommendations  which  the  directors  don't 
have  to  accept.  It  cannot  and  will  not  end  the  struggle  between  labor  and  capital. 
At  the  best,  it  will  simply  increase  the  privileges  of  a  small  group  of  skilled 
workers  as  against  the  great  mass  of  the  unskilled.  The  only  republic  of  labor  that 
the  proletariat  will  consider  is  an  industrial  communism  organized  and  managed 
through  the  industrially  organized  producers,  functioning  in  a  new  Socialist  state 
that  will  supplant  the  bourgeois  political  state. — Louis  C.  Fraina,  "The  Republic  of 
Labor,"  The  New  International,  April,  1918. 


PROBLEMS  OF  STATE  CAPITALISM          171 

formation  of  National  Industrial  Councils,  to  be  es- 
tablished in  each  industry  by  the  government  and 
which  are  to  consist  of  employers  and  employees,  act- 
ing under  the  control  of  the  state.  This  is  an  attempt 
at  general  and  definite  "class  co-operation"  which 
would  inevitably  react  against  the  proletariat.  More- 
over, it  is  in  a  measure  prompted  by  the  hope  that 
through  this  means  British  capital  may  cajole  labor 
to  accept  lower  wages  after  the  war  on  the  plea  that 
it  is  necessary  to  meet  the  new  competition.  These 
councils  would  be  dominated  by  the  capitalist  inter- 
ests, as  against  the  workers  would  be  arrayed  state 
and  employers  and  their  joint  power;  they  would 
strengthen  the  reactionary  influence  of  the  bureaucracy 
within  the  craft  unions,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  many 
British  union  officials  are  enthusiastic  about  the  pro- 
posal, while  there  is  considerable  opposition  develop- 
ing among  the  workers  and  the  more  radical  unions. 
Finally,  such  industrial  councils  would  obviously  and 
dominantly  be  used  by  the  skilled  minority  against 
the  unskilled  workers,  and  this  is  undoubtedly  one 
of  the  driving  purposes  behind  the  proposal.  In  its 
attitude  toward  the  workers,  State  Capitalism  adopts 
and  emphasizes  the  policy  of  "divide  and  conquer." 
All  proposals  for  a  sham  industrial  democracy  are 
useless  and  dangerous;  they  are  schemes  directed  at 
the  independence  and  action  of  the  proletariat,  aim- 
ing to  subordinate  the  proletarian  to  the  capitalist. 
They  foster  the  illusion  of  a  measure  of  industrial 


172  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

democracy  under  Capitalism  granted  by  grace  of 
the  capitalist:  the  only  measure  of  industrial  democ- 
racy that  the  proletariat  can  secure  under  Capitalism 
must  be  conquered  by  itself,  maintained  and  extended 
through  its  industrial  unions,  strikes  and  general  mass 
action,  which  impose  its  will  upon  employer  and  gov- 
ernment. 

The  revolutionary  proletariat,  accordingly,  rejects 
equally  the  lure  of  "democratizing"  the  government 
of  State  Capitalism  and  the  lure  of  a  "share"  in  the 
regulation  of  labor  conditions  through  the  fraudulent 
pretense  of  "industrial  democracy." 

The  proletariat  uses  all  its  action,  industrial  and 
parliamentary,  to  develop  its  class  power  and  strike 
at  State  Capitalism,  and  to  secure  an  immediately 
partial  and  ultimately  complete  control  of  industry. 

State  Capitalism  emphasizes  the  fact  that  Capital- 
ism is  not  transformed  into  Socialism  by  the  develop- 
ment of  bourgeois  institutions,  but  by  the  develop- 
ment of  proletarian  consciousness  and  class  power  out 
of  which  arise  the  norms  of  the  institutions  of  the 
oncoming  communist  society. 

It  is  only  because  the  meaning  of  political  action 
has  been  misunderstood  or  disguised  by  petty  bour- 
geois Socialism  that  its  function  is  conceived  as  being 
the  "democratizing"  of  State  Capitalism  into  Social- 
ism. Political  action,  in  the  Marxian  sense,  is  the 
general  revolutionary  action  of  the  proletariat.  An 
industrial  revolt,  a  mass  strike,  are  as  much  a  politi- 


PROBLEMS  OF  STATE  CAPITALISM          173 

cal  act  as  participation  in  the  parliamentary  activity 
of  the  state.  There  is  no  more  complete  proof  of  the 
petty  bourgeois  character  of  the  dominant  Socialism 
than  its  narrow  interpretation  and  practice  of  politi- 
cal action.5  In  the  actual  practice  of  the  Socialist 
movement,  political  action  has  become  a  dead  and 
deadening  parliamentarism, — the  "parliamentary 
idiocy"  bitterly  satirized  by  Marx,  "that  fetters  those 
whom  it  infects  to  an  imaginary  world,  and  robs  them 
of  all  sense,  all  remembrance,  all  understanding  of 
the  rude  outside  world."  Parliamentarism  is  simply 
one  phase  of  political  action;  political  action  is  a 
process  which,  in  the  revolutionary  sense  and  as  a 
factor  in  the  overthrow  of  Capitalism,  is  and  includes 
all  forms  of  militant  class  action  of  the  proletariat. 
Socialist  political  action  is  a  process  of  revolution; 
it  is  in  this  sense  that  "all  class  struggles  are  political 
struggles,"  political  in  the  sense  that  the  class  strug- 
gle is  directed  against  the  existing  social  system  and 
its  governmental  expression.  The  conquest  of  politi- 
cal power  is  not  the  parliamentary  penetration  of 
the  state,  but  the  developing  class  power  of  the  pro- 
letariat that  yields  it  social  supremacy.  Parliamen- 
tarism is  a  phase,  and  not  at  all  a  dominant  phase, 
of  revolutionary  political  action;  it  is  utterly  reac- 

5  The  climax  of  this  emasculation  of  Socialist  political  action  was  reached 
at  the  Indianapolis  convention  of  the  Socialist  Party,  which,  in  the  notorious 
Section  6,  Article  II,  defined  political  action  as  "participation  in  elections  for 
public  office  and  practical  legislative  and  administrative  work  along  the  lines 
of  the  Socialist  Party  platform."  This  utterly  reactionary  and  unscientific  measure 
was  repealed  at  the  St.  Louis  Convention  in  1917,  but  the  practice  and  policy  it 
defines  have  not  yet  in  practice  been  completely  repealed. 


174  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

tionary  when  it  separates  itself,  as  it  has  done,  from 
the  general  action  of  the  proletariat,  when  it  seeks 
to  dominate,  instead  of  being  dominated  by,  the  gen- 
eral struggles  of  the  workers.  Under  the  conditions 
of  State  Capitalism,  parliamentarism  alone  and  of 
itself  becomes  even  more  incomplete  than  in  the 
past,  because  State  Capitalism  carries  with  it  the 
collapse  of  parliaments  as  a  real  governing  force. 

The  trend  of  recent  years  emphasizes  the  fact  of 
parliamentary  impotence,  and  State  Capitalism 
strengthens  this  trend.  As  government  more  and 
more  adapts  itself  to  the  requirements  of  regulation 
of  industry,  the  parliament  breaks  down  in  trying  to 
cope  with  the  new  problems.  The  constituent  and 
geographical  basis  of  parliamentary  government  dis- 
qualifies it  from  performing  industrial  functions. 
The  complexity  of  forces  expressed  in  State  Capital- 
ism, independent  of  the  necessity  of  a  centralized 
autocracy  in  the  struggles  of  Imperialism,  renders  par- 
liamentary control  futile  and  demoralizing.6  The 
powers  of  the  state  centralize  in  the  administration, 
while  formally  they  may  remain  legislative.  The 
regulation  of  industry  becoming  the  dominant  func- 
tion of  the  state,  experts  and  extra-parliamentary 


6  Our  governmental  machinery — city,  state  and  national — is  not  geared  to 
deal  with  serious  economic  problems.  It  breaks  down  when  a  demand  is  made  on 
it  for  aid  in  regulating  big  economic  forces.  It  does  not  know  how  to  compel 
economic  and  social  efficiency. — New  York  Tribune,  February  25,  1917.  Moreover, 
the  arch-Imperialist  London  Times  recently  proposed,  as  an  after-the-war  measure, 
the  reconstruction  of  the  House  of  Commons,  favoring  the  abolition  of  political 
representation  based  on  geographical  divisions,  and  insisting  upon  elections  by 
trades,  industries  and  occupations.  Of  course,  such  a  reconstruction  would  proceed 
on  a  capitalistic  basis. 


PROBLEMS  OF  STATE  CAPITALISM          175 

commissions  are  put  in  charge  of  this  function  of 
regulation,  responsible  to  the  administrative  power, 
and  not  to  the  parliament.  Parliaments  may  talk, 
but  they  do  not  act;  they  have  no  real  control  over 
events  and  the  functions  of  government,  becoming 
convenient  forms  for  maintaining  the  illusion  of 
democracy.  This  tendency  toward  an  administrative 
autocracy  is  strengthened  by  the  belligerent  character 
of  Imperialism,  but  fundamentally  it  is  an  expression 
of  the  industrial  facts  of  State  Capitalism,  and  neces- 
sary even  if  military  considerations  were  excluded. 

The  capitalist  state  must  not  be  strengthened  but 
weakened  by  Socialist  parliamentary  criticism  and 
action;  the  state  must  be  undermined  and  dragged 
down  by  the  developing  class  power  and  struggles 
of  the  proletariat  by  all  the  general  means  of  action 
at  its  disposal. 

Parliamentarism  showed  itself  utterly  futile  in  the 
European  crisis,  except  in  the  revolutionary  criticism 
of  a  few  rebels  such  as  Liebnecht,  Ruhle,  and  Mor- 
gari.  The  supreme  utility  attached  to  parliamentar- 
ism was  a  strong  factor  in  destroying  the  morale  and 
taming  the  fighting  energy  of  Socialism.  Even  had 
the  Socialists  had  the  will  to  organize  actual  opposi- 
tion to  the  war,  what  could  they  have  done?  Parlia- 
ment had  no  real  control  over  events ;  all  the  Socialist 
parliamentarians  could  have  done  was  to  vote  against 
the  war  credits.  The  unions  had  no  initiative,  the  par- 
liamentary movement  having  always  played  the  domi- 


176  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

nant  role.  A  General  Strike?  But  a  General  Strike 
implies  a  conscious  and  virile  industrial  proletariat 
and  organization,  aware  of  its  power  and  accustomed 
to  act  without  being  subservient  to  a  parliamentary- 
mad  bureaucracy.  The  Social  Democracy  had  al- 
ways conceived  the  unions  as  an  auxiliary  of  minor 
importance,  denying  them  any  decisive  function. 
Moreover,  the  dominant  unions  had  become  imperial- 
istic. The  actual  sources  of  power  were  centralized 
in  an  administrative  autocracy,  and  only  revolution- 
ary mass  action  could  have  undermined  these  pow- 
ers,—that  general  mass  action  out  of  which  revolu- 
tionary struggles  arise,  but  which  was  bitterly  op- 
posed by  parliamentary,  petty  bourgeois  Socialism. 
Parliamentarism  may  become  an  expression  of  pro- 
letarian class  power:  it  can  never  become  class  power 
itself. 

As  an  expression  of  the  general  struggles  of  the 
proletariat,  as  a  means  of  developing  proletarian  con- 
sciousness, as  an  integral  phase  of  proletarian  strug- 
gle as  a  whole,  parliamentarism  is  necessary  and  of 
value.  But  it  must  relate  itself  to  other  forms  of 
struggle ;  it  must  abandon  the  policy  of  social-reform- 
ism. The  revolutionary  Socialist  does  not  abandon 
the  struggle  for  immediate  demands  to  the  opportuni- 
ist;  on  the  contrary,  the  final  and  only  answer  to 
the  misleading  "immediate  demands"  of  the  oppor- 
tunist is  for  the  revolutionary  Socialist  to  concen- 
trate on  immediate  demands  that  imply  an  aggressive 


PROBLEMS  OF  STATE  CAPITALISM          177 

struggle  against  Capitalism  and  that  are  phases  of  the 
developing  Social  Revolution. 

The  revolutionary  proletariat  and  Socialism,  ac- 
cordingly, organize  against  State  Capitalism,  against 
the  bourgeois  state  and  parliamentary  government, 
preparing  to  substitute  in  their  place  an  industrial, 
communist  administration  by  and  of  the  proletariat. 


XI 
UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION. 

THE  working  class,  as  every  revolutionary  class, 
passes  through  a  process  of  material  and  ideological 
development,  in  which  its  purposes  and  tactics,  de- 
termined by  the  prevailing  historical  conditions,  are 
transformed  and  adapted  to  new  circumstances  as 
they  arise.  This  development,  roughly,  consists  of 
three  phases: 

1.  Isolated  economic  action,  through  craft  unions 
and  sporadic  strikes,  with  a  gradual  development  of 
the  idea  of  independent  political  action  as  a  revolu- 
tionary means  of  struggle. 

2.  Political  action,  in  its  parliamentary  sense, 
dominant  in  the  proletarian  class  movement,  becomes 
conservative  and  incompatible  with  the  development 
of  the  proletariat,  does  not  adapt  itself  to  this  devel- 
opment; and  revolutionary  movements  arise,  indus- 
trial in  character,  that  repudiate  all  politics. 

3.  The  third  phase,  the  phase  into  which  we  are 
now  emerging,  adjusts  itself  to  new  circumstances  and 
the  increasing  development  of  the  proletariat,  recog- 

178 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  179 

nizing  industrial  and  political  action  as  synthetic/ 
factors  in  the  general  mass  action  of  the  proletariat^ 
as  phases  of  the  dynamic  struggles  of  the  new  social* 
revolutionary  era. 

The  proletariat  steps  upon  the  stage  of  history 
as  a  revolutionary  class.  It  was  the  still  immature 
class  of  workers  that  saved  the  French  Revolution, 
that  established  a  bourgeois  revolution  in  spite  of 
the  cowardly  hesitancy  and  compromise  of  the  bour- 
geoisie. In  all  subsequent  revolutions  in  France — 
and  France  is  the  classical  exemplar  of  this  period  in 
the  development  of  the  proletariat — the  workers  were 
a  dynamic  factor;  they  made  the  revolution,  but  they 
could  not  retain  control  because  of  the  immaturity 
of  their  class  development.  The  great  struggle  of  the 
Paris  Commune  was  the  final  heroic  act  of  this  period, 
and  at  the  same  time  a  projection  of  what  was  to 
come.  In  the  historical  sense,  these  revolts  were  not 
revolution  but  insurrections,  revivals  of  the  action  of 
the  bourgeois  revolution  and  dominated  largely  by 
its  ideology.  With  the  downfall  of  the  Commune 
and  the  collapse  of  the  social-revolutionary  First  In- 
ternational, the  workers  enter  upon  a  new  period,  the 
period  of  systematic,  peaceful  organization  and  strug- 
gle, along  national  and  moderate  lines,  and  not  inter- 
national and  revolutionary.  The  value  of  these  early 
revolts  lay  in  impressing  the  workers  with  a  sense  of 
their  own  class  immaturity  and  driving  out  of  their 


180  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

consciousness  the  surviving  ideology  of  the  bourgeois 
revolution. 

The  workers,  when  they  organize  against  Capital- 
ism, organize  into  unions  to  carry  on  a  struggle  for 
more  wages  and  better  conditions  of  work  generally. 
Largely  because  their  skill  is  still  an  important  factor, 
(and  these  early  movements  are  dominantly  move- 
ments of  skilled  labor),  the  workers  win  certain  con- 
cessions. But  because  they  are  skilled  workers,  and 
equally  because  Capitalism  has  not  yet  integrated 
industry  and  the  proletariat,  these  movements  do  not 
assume  revolutionary  proportions,  nor  do  they  ac- 
tually conquer  material  concessions.  The  economic 
action  is  isolated;  there  is  no  general  contact  of  the 
working  class  with  the  capitalist  class,  and  the  con- 
ception of  a  more  general  class  struggle  arises,  de- 
veloping into  politics  and  parliamentary  activity. 
Through  the  action  of  politics,  the  workers  oppose 
a  general  struggle  to  Capitalism,  a  struggle  that  can- 
not develop  out  of  isolated  economic  action.  At  this 
period  the  concept  of  the  workers  engaging  in  inde- 
pendent class  politics  is  revolutionary,  as  it  develops 
the  consciousness  of  class  and  establishes  class  contact 
with  the  ruling  class. 

Socialism,  with  its  program  of  class  politics,  offers 
the  workers  a  class  conceptipji^iigLjjlasZacdyityjyhial 
are_historicajly  revolutionary.  This  development 
marks  an  epoch  in  the  proletarian  movement.  It 
arouses,  ideologically  and  potentially  at  least,  the 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  181 

workers'  consciousness  of  class;  and  without  this  con- 
sciousness of  class  the  proletariat  is  doomed  either 
to  futile  insurrection  or  being  an  instrument  for  the 
promotion  of  rival  bourgeois  interests. 

Accordingly,  Socialism  develops  along  the  lines 
of  politics,  in  the  parliamentary  sense.  But  a  means 
of  action  may  be  revolutionary  or  conservative  ac- 
cording to  historical  conditions  and  requirements. 
At  one  period,  a  particular  means  may  be  revolution- 
ary; at  another,  considering  new  conditions  which  re- 
quire new  or  supplementary  means  of  action,  it  may 
become  conservative,  even  reactionary.  This  is  pre- 
cisely what  happens  to  Socialism  in  its  parliamentary 
phase,  which  is  its  dominant  phase.  Where  previous- 
ly Socialism  developed  the  consciousness  of  class 
and  potential  revolution  in  the  proletariat,  within  the 
limits  of  its  maturity,  it  now  becomes  a  force  that 
hampers  this  development. 

Socialism  in  its  early  activity  as  a  general  organ- 
ized movement  was^compeHed  to  emphasizeThe  ac- 
tion  of  politics  bec^use^^jhe_immaturity  of  thej>ro- 
, Ifitariat.    The  workers  are  scattered,  and  their  strug- 
;les  are  largely  directed  against  the  individual  em- 
loyer;  large  scale  industry  has  not  developed  suffi- 
ciently to  make  large  masses  of  workers  engage  in  a 
general  industrial  class  struggle  against  Capitalism 
and  the  state.     The  workers,  subjectively  and  objec- 
tively, find  it  difficult  to  establish  general  class  con- 
tact with  each  other  industrially;  it  could  be,  and 


182  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

it  was,  done  through  political  contact  of  isolated 
workers.  Socialism,  the  dominant  parliamentary 
Socialism,  sees  in  the  unions  simply  a  transitory  phase 
which  may  be  necessary  under  given  conditions,  but 
which  are  unimportant  in  comparison  with  politics, 
as  is  mass  action  and  extra-parliamentary  action  gen- 
erally. The  unions  are  conceived  as  conservative 
instruments,  as  organizations  that  in  fact  retard  the 
revolutionary  development  of  the  workers, — which 
is  true,  in  the  period  under  consideration,  but  not  as 
an  ultimate  proposition.  Socialism  makes  ajfetish 
of  politicsijiaijiamentarism^  is  emphasized  as  the 
instrument  withjwfaich  the  proletariat  may  emancipate 
itself. But  that  happens  which  differs  from  the  ear- 
lier Socialist  politics;  under  the  impulse  of  the  na- 
tional bias,  social-reformism  and  an  opportunism 
that  refuses  to  adapt  itself  to  new  requirements,  the 
parliamentary,  as  well  as  the  general,  activity  of  So- 
cialism becomes  conservative,  hesitant,  compromis- 
ing. The  dominant  Socialism  becomes  a  fetter  upon 
the  emancipation  of  the  proletariat.1 

This  result  does  not  arise  out  of  any  one  fact,  but 
out  of  a  series  of  facts,  previously  considered;  the 
central  fact  is  that  Socialism  did  not  adjust  itself  to 
the  development  of  the  proletariat,  nor  to  the  social- 
revolutionary  era  objectively  introduced  by  Imper- 
ialism and  the  war;  and  this  failure  to  adjust  pur- 

1  Just  as  the  national  states  became  an  obstacle  to  the  development  of  the 
forces  of  production,  so  the  Socialist  parties  became  the  chief  obstacle  to  the 
development  of  the  revolutionary  movements  of  the  working  class. — Leon  Trotzky, 
The  War  and  the  International. 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  183 

poses  and  tactics  to  the  new  proletarian  and  social 
conditions  conservatizes  Socialism,  turns  it  into  a  re- 
actionary force, — temporarily,  to  be  sure,  but  still 
reactionary. 

The  concentration  of  industry  and  technological 
development  generally  have  during  the  past  twenty 
years  revolutionized  the  material  existence  of  the 
proletariat.  On  the  one  hand  has  been  produced  the 
typical  proletarian~of~avttiaae  unskilled  labor;"  on 
the  other,  the  integration  of  industry  in  mammoth 
proportions  has  developed  the  conditions  for  general 
class  action  of  the  workers  through  inidustrial  means 
directed  against  the  capitalist,  not  as  an  individual 
but  as  a  class,  and  against  the  whole  bourgeois  regime 
and  its  state.  The  proletariat  has  been  centralized 
into  large  industrial  groupings,  and  jtsrevolts~anJ 
ajtinnj^nnafrtiTte  a  gpnpfa]  action  against  Capitalism, 

the  tremors  ofjivlTJrJT__arg_fff1l'  throughout  the  whnle 
industrial  and  social  system.  This  development,  co- 
incident, it  must  be  emphasized,  with  the  rise  of  Im- 
perialism, arouses  discontent  and  revolts  in  the  craft 
unions,  which  are  unable  to  cope  with  the  new  devel- 
opments, and  in  which  the  unskilled  become  a  more 
and  more  influential  factor.  But  even  more  signifi- 
cant are  the  great  strikes  involving  large  masses  of 
unorganized  unskilled  workers,  strikes  that  shake  the 
very  fabric  of  capitalist  society,  and  the  influence  of 
which  Stimulate  revolutionary  r.iirrpnts  within  thf>  Sp- 
ciallsForganizations.  Instead  of  recognizing  the  re- 


184  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

volutionary  vitality  of  these  new  developments,  the 
dominant  Socialism  tries  to  compress  and  stultify 
them  within  the  limits  of  the  old  tactics,  tries  to  main- 
tain the  ascendancy  of  a  Socialism  expressing  the 
non-revolutionary  elements  of  skilled  labor  and  the 
petty  bourgeoisie.  In  its  struggles  against  Capital- 
ism and  the  dominant  Socialism  the  unskilled  indus- 
trial proletariat  turns  to  mass  action,  a  mass  action 
that  emphasizes  the  futility  and  reactionary  character 
of  pure  and  simple  parliamentarism.2 

The  reactionary  character  of  the  dominant  Social- 
ism is  expressed  not  simply  in  the  failure  to  accept 
the  new  developments,  but  in  the  fact  that  it  has  fre- 
quently condemned  and  opposed  manifestations  of 
the  new  proletarian  action,  occassionally  even  ac- 
tively betrayed  the  unskilled  proletariat  while  it 
was  in  the  midst  of  gigantic  struggles  against  Capital- 
ism. 

The  dominant  Socialism  maintains  its  influence  be- 
cause of  prestige,  the  conservatism  of  organization, 
and  the  insufficiently  developed  consciousness  of  the 
unskilled  proletariat;  but  it  is  gradually  undermined 
by  industrial  development  and  its  new  requirements. 
The  industrial  proletariat  is  "organized  by  the  very 
mechanism  of  capitalist  production  itself;"  industry 
becomes  co-ordinated,  integrated,  and  the  strikes  of 

2  "The  caute  of  the  new  tactical  differences,"  says  Anton  Pannekoek,  "arise* 
from  the  fact  that  under  the  influence  of  the  modern  form  of  capitalism  the 
labor  movement  lias  taken  on  a  new  form  of  action,  to  wit,  mass  action ;"  and 
in  criticizing  Kaustky,  to  whom  the  new  tactics  appear  as  anarchistic,  Pannekoek 
says,  "for  Kaustky  mass  action  is  an  act  of  revolution,  for  us  it  is  a  process  of 
revolution." 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  185 

the  unskilled  workers  assume  revolutionary  signifi- 
cance, antagonizing  the  dominant  craft  unions  and 
pailiamentary^Sgcialism,  and  striking  directly  at 
Capitalism  through  the  industrial  source  of  capitalist 
.supremacy.  While  antagonisms  between  the  bloc  of 
skilled  labor  and  the  petite  bourgeoisie  as  against  the 
ipitalist  class  are  softened,  the  antagonisms  between 
le  industrial  proletariat  and  Capitalism  are  sharp- 
ened. Industrial  struggles  become  more  and  more 
;eneral,  larger  in  scope  and  intensity;  a  new  epoch 

of  class  war  emerges,  rpilpnflpiss  in  spirit 


sive  in  purpose, — a  class  war  having  as  its  driving 
orce  the  mass  action  of  the  industrial  proletariat  of 
average  labor. 

The  new  conditions  of  proletarian  struggle  develop 
new  conceptions  and  organization,  or  ideas  of  organ- 
ization. The  facts  of  industrial  concentration,  the 
decreasing  importancejjf  skilled  labor,  the  massing 
of  industrial  control  in  a  centralized  capitalist  autoc- 
racy, gender  more  and  more  futile  the_economic 
struggles  ofjhe  craft  unions, 


ly  in  industrial  andjxdjtical  bargaining.  But^a  new 
and  militant  force  arises  in  the  unions,  composed  of 
the  unskilled  and  those  whose  skill  has  been  expropri- 

— —  -----  *          •*• 


ated  by  the  machine  process;  revolutionary_current8 
develop,  and  the  problem  ofjndustrial  unionism  be- 

comes  an  issue.  Industrial  unionism,  however,  is  in- 
compatible with  the  dominant  forces  in  the  craft 
unions;  the  unskilled  are  a  minority,  and  industrial 


186  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

unionism  is  turned  into  a  compromise,  a  grotesque 
compromise  in  the  form  of  "amalgamations."  The 
concept  of  industrial  unity  and  solidarity  of  action 
cannot  break  through  the  pride  and  prestige  of  craft 
and  property;  industrial  unionism  founders  on  the 
rocks  of  craft  disputes  and  jurisdictional  squabbles, 
which  absorb  so  much  of  craft  union  activity.  The 
craft  unions  are  completly  destroyed,  as  in  the  steel 
industry,  or  they  become,  largely,  mere  "job  trusts" 
and  instruments  of  peaceful  bargaining  and  compro- 
mise with  the  employers,  supplemented  by  betrayals 
of  the  unskilled. 

IndustriaHmioiusmJjejXMnes  an  expression  of,  and 
develops  real  strength  and  influence  junong.  the  un- 
skilled workers,  in  whom  common  conditions jjQaJbo*; 
absence  of  craft  distinctions  and  the  discipline  of  ma- 
chine  industry  develop  the  necessjty_and  potentiality 
nf_  tfrg  "idiTgtria1  f^mLJiL  organization.3  The  power 
of  thisj3roletariat^ lies  in  its  mass  and  numbers,  in  its 
lack  of  artificial  distinctions  of  skill  and  craft.  Being 
a  product  of  the  massing  of  workers  in  a  particular 
industry,  the  unskilled  strike  en  masse,  .acLtbrough 
mass  action;  being  united  and  disciplined  by  concen- 


.  3  In  this  country,  the  history  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  proTes 
(conclusively  that  industrial  unionism  is  a  movement  of  the  proletariat  of  unskilled 
labor.  The  convention  that  organized  the  I.  W.  W.  in  1905  consisted  of  skilled 
/fend  unskilled,  but  the  skilled  workers  gradually  deserted  the  organization;  and  the 
real  history  and  significance  of  the  I.  W.  W.  has  been  precisely  its  expressing  the 
developing  consciousness  and  action  of  the  unskilled  workers.  It  is  this  circum- 
stance that  made  the  I.  W.  W.  a  revolutionary  portent  in  the  labor  movement. 
The  non-recognition  of  this  fact  was  largely  responsible  for  the  violent  attacks 
made  upon  the  I.  W.  W.  as  organized  after  1908,  by  Daniel  De  Leon  and  the 
Socialist  Labor  Party;  and  this  fact  also  is  responsible  for  the  antagonism  and 
often  open  warfare  between  the  I.  W.  W.  and  the  dominant  force*  in  the  Socialist 
Party. 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  187 

trated  industry  and  its  machine  process,  the  unskilled 
proletariat  organizes  its  unions  industrially,  in  accord 
with  the  facts  of  industry,  in  accord  with  the  condi- 
tions of  its  work  and  existence.  Industrial  unionism 
mjmmja  an  expression  of  the  integrationjfjndustry 
and  tTipj->rnTpffln'at  hy  tViP  mechanism  jof^capitalist 
productign_itgelf. 


fiomsm    of    the    revolutionary    proletariat. 
groups  of  workers  in  an  industry  are  organized  and 
unified  into  one  union,  "cast  in  the  mold  of  the  in- 


dustry in  which  ~they  york,  artinciflj  rlrffiftrenr.^  of 
c^u^alioliaTdivisions_Jbeing  swept  aside.  Strikes 
become  general  and  acquire  political  significance,  ac- 

e  integrated 


i  aiTintegrated  prnl  eta  ri  a  t^  Where  the  craft 
unions  initiated  the  strike  of  a  single  group  of  workers 
in  an  industry,  the  industrial  j"*f  *ft  *njli|Kifig  a  gtnVp 
of  all  the  workers.  The  ideology  of  solidarity  be- 


Industrial  unionism,  as  the  expression  of  unskilled 
workers  impelled  by  objective  conditions  to  subjec- 
tively accept  class  action,  acquires  a  revolutionary 
concept,  consciousness  and  activity.  Instead  of  the 
craft  union  motto  of  "A  fair  day's  pay  for  a  fail 
day's  work,"  industrial  unionism  inscribes  upon  its 
banners  the  revolutionaray  motto,  "Abolition  of  the 
wages  system."  The  ultimate  purpose  of  industrial. 
unionism  is  the  organization  of  all  the  workers  in  ac- 
co"rcf  with  the  facts  of  production,  constructing  in  this 


188  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

Wjiy_thestructure  of  the  new  society  within  th 
a  necessaryjjhase  in  the  overthrow  of  Capitalism  and 
the  establishment  of  a  new  society  which  shall  func- 
tion through  the  industrially  organized  producers. 

//NoTthe~state,  but  Aejndustrial  union  is  the  instru- 
ment  of  revolution, — equally  the  might  for  the  revolu- 

n  tionary  act  and  the  norm  of  the  new  society.  Indus^" 
trial  unionism  is  noTslmpIy  a  means,  a  more  effective 
means  than  any  previously  "^useoT,  to  carry  on  the 
every-day  struggle  against  the  employing  class:  it 
is~Socialism  in  action  and  Socialism  in  the  making.4 
But  the  dominant  conservative  Socialism  refuses 
to  accept,  it  cannot  accept  unless  transforming  itself, 
the  revolutionary  implications  of  industrial  union- 
ism. Organized  Socialism  persists  in  rendering  stulti- 
fying homage  to  the  fetish  of  parliamentarism.  The 
general  defects  of  parliamentarism  are  emphasized 
and  multiplied  by  the  conditions  of  State  Capitalism 
and  the  developing  requirements  of  the  proletariat 
of  average  labor:  it  cannot  express  the  requirements 
of  this  proletariat,  nor  can  it  successfully  wage  the 
struggle  against  State  Capitalism,  which  means  an  in- 
tensification of  class  antagonisms  and  struggles  and 

4.  Karl  Kautsky.  who  usually  sees  clearly  in  theory  but  hesitate*  and  com- 
promise* miserably  in  practice,  an  attitude  typical  of  the  "centrist,"  said  in  an 
article  in  the  International  Socialist  Review,  April  1901:  "The  trades  unions  .... 
will  constitute  the  most  energetic  factors  in  surmounting  the  present  mode  of  pro- 
duction and  they  will  be  pillars  on  which  the  edifice  of  the  Socialist  commonwealth 
will  be  erected."  This_  is  a  recognition  of  the  revolutionary  TH'**''"" — of  imtontlnT 
But  the  trades  unions  are  not  working  for  therevolution ;  they  are  working  for  a 
place  in  the  governing  system  of  things, — making  for  State  Capitalism,  and  not  So- 
cialism. Nor  does  the  structure  of  the  trades  unions  admit  of  their  waging  a  revolu- 
tionary struggle  against  Capitalism  or  of  assuming  management  of  concentrated 
industry. 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  189 

the  development  of  an  emerging  proletarian  state 
through  industrial  unions  as  against  the  state  of  im- 
perialistic State  Capitalism.  The  new  movements  of 
the  industrial  proletariat  engage  in  a  struggle  to  rev- 
olutionize the  dominant  Socialism;  the  struggle  fails 
and  is  relinquished,  developing  the  idea  that  Social- 
ist politics  as  such  are  not  and  never  can  become  rev- 
olutionary; the  trend  becomes  one  of  severing  re- 
lations with  Socialism,  and  the  revolutionary  move- 
ments of  the  proletariat  acquire  an  active  or  passive 
non-political  bias.  This  development  emphasizes  the 
vital  defects  of  the  parliamentary  policy  of  Social- 


ism.5 


This  non-political  policy  is  temporary,  being  the 
product  of  transitory  conditions.  As  industrial  un- 
ionism engages  more  and  more  in  the  general  class 
fight  against  Capitalism,  as  parliamentary  Socialism 
weakens  under  the  pressure  of  revolutionary  events, 
each  in  itself  and  even  jointly  are  considered  incom- 
plete, and  the  two  means  of  action  become  merged 
in  the  general  action  of  the  proletariat,  centralized, 
dominated  and  energized  by  revolutionary  mass  ac- 
tion. 

What  are  the  limitations  of  industrial  unionism  and 


5.     Ti»»  -conquest    of   political    supremacy    becomes    a    peaceful    process,    which    BO 
far    as    the    masses    are    concerned   Consists    only  of    propaganda    and    elections.      It    is 
the   work  Tfr  tbc-  Suulnl   Democracy   as  a   political  party J~  other  working   clan   organ- 
izations,   even    the    labor    unions,    are    unnecessary    ....  The    defect    of    pure    andtt 
simple    parliamentarism    lies    in    the    fact    that    it    considers    the    form    of   suffrage    as  H 
something   absolute   and   independent.      But   precisely   like   the   entire   constitution   the    1 
suffrage   is   merely  an   expression   of   the  actual  relations   of  power  in   society   ....  1  | 
The  peaceful  parliamentary  conquest  of  power  ....  pre-supposes  universal  suffrage,  \ 
and  universal   suffrage   can   simply   be  abolished   by  a   parliament. — Anton   Pannekoek,  M 
"Socialism  and  Labor  Unionism,"  in  The  New  Review,  July  1913. 


190  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

parliamentary  action  in  their  particularized  activity? 
Parliamentary  action  in  and  of  itself  cannot  real- 
thtTmilitant  independence  of  the  proletariat,  mar- 


e     tmian    nepenence  o      e  proeara,  mar- 
hal  its  forces  and  organize  its  revolutionary  action. 


arliamentary  activity  is  an  expression  of  the  pro- 


etarian  struggle,  not  the  struggle  itself;  it  is  a  form 


f  expressio>n_Qj£  class  power.,  but  iyrt  a  fundamental 


factor  in  develojnngjhis  class  power.  Parliamentar- 
ism in  itselFcannot  alter  the  actual  bases  of  power 
in  the  class  struggle,  nor  develop  that  force  without 
which  the  aspirations  of  the  Revolution  are  unreal- 
izable. All  propaganda,  all  electoral  and  parliamen- 
tary activity  are  insufficient  for  the  overthrow  of  CapT^ 
talism,impotent  when  the  ultimate  test  of  the  class 
tin™  ifitn  q  tpst  nf  pwv~r  The  power  for 
foe  Social  Revolution  issues  out  of  the  actual  strug- 
glesjjfjhe  prolgtariatgjm^of  its  strikes,  its  industrial 
unions  and  mass  action.  The  peaceful  parliamentary 
conquest  of  the  state  is_either  sheerjutopia  or  reac- 
tion; this  conception  forgets  two  important^hTng^: 
the  actuaPpbwer  of  government  resides  in  uidusjtry 
and  in' an  administrative  autocracy,  not  in  parlia- 
ments,  and  this  power,  must  he  overthrown  by  extra- 
parliamentary  action ;  while  it  is  utterly  inconceiv- 
able that  revolutionary  Socialism  should  ever  secure 
power  through  an  electoral  majority  under  the  forms 
of  bourgeois  democracy.  £ajJiamentarism_  is  ac- 
tually counter-revolutionary,  as  it  strengthens  the  fet- 
isITof  democracy:  bourgeois  democracy  must  be  an- 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  191 

nihilated  before  the  proletarian  revolution  may  func- 
tion. The  revolution  is  an  act  of  a  minority,  at  first; 
of  the  most  class  conscious  section  of  the  industrial 
proletariat,  which,  in  a  test  of  electoral  strength, 
would  be  a  minority,  but  which,  being  a  solid,  in- 
dustrially indispensable  class,  can  disperse  and  de- 
feat all  other  classes  through  the  annihilation  of  the 
fraudulent  democracy  of  the  parliamentary  system 
implied  in  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  imposed 
upon  society  by  means  of  revolutionary  mass  action. 
State  j^gpitalism,  through  it«  wefllcp.ning  of  parlia- 
mentary control  _and.  its  jcentralized  administrative 
autocracy^  emphasizes  the^  insufficiency^  of  parliamen- 
tarism. But  yet  the  proletarian,  movement  cannot  re- 
ject_pplitics.  Paradoxical  though  it  may  appear,  State 
Capitalism,  while  it  emphasizes  the  futility  of  parlia- 
mentarism in  and  of  itself,  broadens  the  scope  and 
necessity  of  politics.  In  unifying  ruling  class  inter- 
ests and  imposing  a  drastic  regulation  upon  industry, 
State  Capitalism  makes  the  state  a  vital  issue  of  the 
class  struggle  in  its  general  aspects.  More  and  more 
the  state  cj^e^^hsjelfjd^recdyjn  industrial  disputes: 
the~class  struggle  becomes  intensely  political.  Politics 
is  the  field  in  which  all  issues  of  the  class  struggle  are 
in  action.  It  is  not  a  single  issue,  but  the  totality  oT 
issues  arising  out  of  the  antagonisms  of  bourgeois  so- 
ciety that  the  proletariat  must  struggle  against.  It  is 
not  through  ownership  of  industry  alone  that  the  capi- 
talist maintains  his  rule;  the  simple  fact  of  ownership 


192  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

is  itself  maintained  by  a  large  number  of  means,  a 
large  number  of  issues,  social,  political,  international, 
— all  of  which  are  centralized  in  State  Capitalism. 
The  proletariat  must  interest  itself  in  all  these  issues, 
engage  in  the  parliamentary  struggle  through  which 
capitalist  society  as  a  whole  stands  forth  naked  and 
unashamed. 

The  parliamentary  struggle,  waged  in  a  revolution- 
ary spirit  and  as  a  phase  of  the  general  action  of  the 
proletariat,  issues  a  challenge  -to.  capitalist  supremacy 
in  every  issue  that  comes  up  for  discussion,  the  total- 
ity ofjssues  which  insures  bourgeois  supremacy.  It 
js  not  through  securing  better  wages  and  better  con- 
jditions  of  labor  that  the  proletariat  conquers  social 
'/power,  but  by  weakening  Capitalism  in  all  the  issues 
that  maintain  its  ascendancy.  Parliamentary  action 
centers  attention  on  all  these  issues^  if  revolutionary, 
parliamentary  action  realizes  the  futility,  however, 
of  solvSgjhgge  issues  through  politics  Baloney  and  it 
therefore  calls  tojhe  struggle  the  industrial  and  mass 
action  oTtEe^proletariat  in  class  politicalstrikes.  This 
unity  of  means  and  action  develops  class  consciousness 
and  class  power.  By  concentrating^]!  all  issues  that 
are  vital  to  Capitalism,  revolutionary  Socialist  par- 
liamentarismejnphlisTzes  and  intensifies  the  antagon- 
ismlTBeTween  proletariat  and  bourgeoisie,  and  in  this 
sense  awakens  the  consciousness  and  general  action  of 
the  proletariat.  At  one  momentjxxLitics  developJnto 
industrial  and  mass  action;  at  another  moment,  jliese 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  193 

develop  into  jmlitics:  thejwo  are  inseparable  phases 
of  the  same  dynamic  process  _of_d.ass  i^ 


__         ^ 

dependent  upon  and  developing  the  other.  Socialist 
parliamentarism,  accordingly,  should  not  be  an 
empty  means  of  protest  or  a  futile  means  of  "democ- 
ratizing" the  state  and  "growing  into"  Socialism,  but 
a  dynamic  phase  of  proletarian  action;  and,  recogniz- 
ing its  limitations  and  utility,  becomes  a  supreme 
method  of  developing  revolutionary  and  class  con-/ 
sciousness  ideologically,  which  is  transformed  into 
class  power  by  industrial  and  mass  action. 

itself  ,  and  even  if  it  recog- 


nizes and  accepts  the  Socialist  parliamentary  struggle, 
has  its  own  limitations.  Industrial  unionism,  in  its 
dogmatic  expression,  assumes  a  general  organization 
oi^heproletariat  before  Socialism  can  be  established, 


JLa  .general  industrial  organization 
that  may  seize  and  operate  industry.  In  terms  of  in- 
finity, it  may  be  conceivable  that  some  day,  some  how, 
toe  majority  of  the  proletariat,  or  an  overwhelm- 
ing minority,  may  become  organized  into  industrial 
unions  under  Capitalism.  In  terms  of  actual  practice, 
this  is  inconceivable.  The_proletariat  of  unskilled 
labor,  which  alone  may  accept  industrial  unionism, 
JFlTcTass  difficultjo  organize;  its  conditions  of  labor 
discourage  or^mzatipji^ndjnake  it  move  and  act 
under  themipulse  of  mass  action.  The  conditions  of 
Capitalism,  its  violent  upheavals  and  stress  of  strug- 
gle, exclude  the  probability  of  an  all-inclusive  pro- 


194  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

letarian  organization;  moreover,  should  we  hestitate 
to  act  until  this  general  organization  materializes,6 
Capitalism  may  turn  in  on  itself  and  establish  a  new 
form  of  slavery.  In  its_dogmatic  expression,  indus- 
trial unionism  has  much  in  common  with  the  parlia- 
mentary Socialist  conception  of  the_j3ejicj;fulJi!grow- 
ing  into"  Socialism;  it  evades  the  dynamic  problems 
of  ffieTlevolution,  siibstitutmgJhAm:y~^nr  reality  and 
formula  for  action.  It  is  fantastic  as  a  general  prop- 
osition, it  is  particularly  fantastic  considering  the 
period  of  violent  upheavals  and  struggle  into  which 
the  world  is  now  emerging,  to  consider  that  the  prole- 
tariat under  Capitalism  can  through  industrialism  or- 
ganize the  structure  of  the  new  society.  The  structure 
,of  industrialism,  the  form  of  thejiew  communist  so- 
ciety, can  be  organized  only  during  the  transition 
period  fromljapitalism  to  Socialism  jicting  through 
the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat;  all  that  can  be  done 
inTEemeanwhile  is  to  develop  a  measure  of  industrial 
organization  and  its  ideology  of  the  industrial  state, 

ft  starting  point  for  a  proleta- 


rian dictatorship  in  its  task  of  introducing  the  indus- 
tfiaj^stateof  communist  Socialism. 

The  supremacy  of  the  proletariat  is  determined  by 
its  action,  and  not  by  its  organization.    The  proletariat 

wh^F^-thprfi  19  no  org^^j^tinn^tVirQiigli  mass 

action;  organization_isa  means  to  action,  and  not  a 


6.  A  general  organization  of  the  workers  will  always  remain  impossible  under 
Capitalism  because  of  its  continuous  state  of  development. — H.  Lauffenberg,  The 
Political  Strike,  1914. 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  195 

substitute  for  action.  The  function  of  an  organiza- 
tion7Tn~the  revolutionary  sense,  is  that  it  may  serve 
as  the  centre  for  action  of  the  unorganized  proletarian 
masses,  rally  and  integrate  the  general  mass  action 
of  the  proletariat,  organizing  and  directing  it  for  the 
conquest  of  power.  Socialism  hastens  the  overthrow 
of  Capitalism  through  revolutionary  action.  In  this 
sense,  parliamentarism  and  industrial  unionism  he- 
come  integral  phases  of  mass  action. 

Mass  action  is  not  a  form  of  action  as  much  as  it 

is  a  prfuv»ssjmA_  .yyytf/|flfifa  of  artinn.7      It  IS  the  Unity 


forms  of  proletarian  action,  a  means  of  throw- 
ing~the  proletariat,  organized  and  unorganized,  in  a 
genefaTstruggle  against  Capitalism  and  the  capitalist 
stated  It  IsHie  sharp,  definite  expression  of  the  revolt 
of  the  workers  under  the  impact  of  the  antagonisms 
and  repressions  of  Capitalism,  of  the  recurring  crises 


7.  Rosa  Luxemburg  has  called  the  mass  strike  the  dynamic  method  of  the  pro- 
letarian masses,  the  characteristic  form  of  the  proletarian  struggle  in  the  Revolution. 
She  considers  mass  action,  and  its  most  important  frntnro.,thr  mass  striker  as  the 
sum  total  of  a  period  in  the  class  struggle  that  may  last  for  years  and  tens  of  years 
until  victory  couuw — to  the  proletariat^.  In  permanent  change,  it  comprises  all 
phases  of  the  political  and  economic  struggle,  all  phase*  of  the.  Revolution.  Mass 
ggSon.  in  its  highest  form  of  political  strike,  means  the  uflity  of  Apolitical  and 

economic     action,     means     the     prnl.-farr.in     rpvnlmjftn     a.     a~hktnri<-     profifi^" .     .   '. — «M 

industrial  action  is  tne  most  efficient  form  of  mass  action,  why  bother  about  minor 
issues?  Why  not  concentrate  all  our  efforts  and  thought  in  building  our  industrial 
unions  so  strong  as  to  overcome  the  capitalist  employer  and  the  capitalist  state? 
touch  an  objection  overlooks  the  complexity  of  real  conditions.  We  are  not  free  to 
choose  our  methods  in  accordance  with  certain  theoretical  constructions,  but  have  to 
•build  on  the  solid  ground  of  actual  facts  in  the  light  of  historical  developments. 
.  .  .Industrial  organization  has  its  historical  limits  beyond  which  we  cannot  rise  at 
the  given  moment  of  our  action.  Large  groups  of  workers  will  continue  for  a 
certain  length  of  time  to  organize  in  craft  unions,  and  although  we  will  tell  them 
they  are  wrong,  and  fight  them  where  injurious  to  their  class,  still  they  will  be  a 
factor  in  our  revolutionary  struggle,  either  for  or  against.  .  .  We  are  convinced  that 
the  technical  development  of  the  capitalist  world  makes  conditions  ripe  for  the 
Socialist  commonwealth  at  this  very  moment,  that  only  our  lack  of  power  stands 
in  the  way  of  the  realization  of  our  hopes.  What  we  want  above  all  is  a  unity  and 
concentration  of  the  forces  already  existing  in  a  latent  form,  a  combination  and 
further  development  of  these  forces  towards  our  revolutionary  aims. — S.  J.  Rutgers, 
"Mass  Action  and  Socialism,"  The  New  International,  February,  1918. 


196  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

and  revolutionary  situations  produced  by  the  violent 
era  of  Imperialism.  Mass  action  is  the  instinctive 
action  of  the  proletariat,  gradually  developing  more 
conscious  and  organized  forms  and  definite  purposes. 
It  is  extra-parliamentary  in  method,  although  political 

;in  purpose  and  result,  may  develop  into  and  be  itself 
developed  by  the  parliamentary  struggle. 

Organizations,  political  and  economic,  have  a  ten- 
dency to  become  conservative;  a  tendency  emphasized, 
moreover,  by  the  fact  that  they  largely  represent  the 
more  favored  groups  of  workers.  These  organiza- 
tions must  be  swept  out  of  their  conservatism  by  the 
elemental  impact  of  mass  action,  functioning  through 
organized  and  unorganized  workers  acting  instinctive- 
ly under  the  pressure  of  events  and  in  disregard  of 
bureaucratic  discipline.  The  great  expressions  of 
mass  action  in  recent  years,  the  New  Zealand  General 
Strike,  the  Lawrence  strike,  the  great  strike  of  the 
British  miners  under  which  capitalist  society  reeled 
on  the  verge  of  collapse, — all  were  mass  actions  or- 
ganized and  carried  through  in  spite  of  the  passive 
and  active  hostility  of  the  dominant  Socialist  and 
labor  organizations,  ynderjlhe  impulse  of  mass  ac- 
tion,  lJieJndh[Lsjriaj^roleJajiat  senses  its  own  power 
and  acguires  the  force  to  actequally  against  Capital- 
ism  and  tlip^»nnspfrvflHsTn  nf  nrgflnJKfltjnns.  Indeed, 
a  vital  feature  of  mass  action  is  precisely  that  it  places 
in  the  hands  of  the  proletariat  the  power  to  overcome 
the  fetters  of  these  organizations,  to  act  in  spite  of 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  197 

their  conservatism,  and  through  proletarian  mass  ac- 
tion emphasize  antagonisms  between  workers  and  capi- 
talists, and  conquer  power.  A  determining  phase  of 
the  proletarian  revolution  in  Russia  was  its  acting 
against  the  dominant  Socialist  organization,  sweeping 
these  aside  through  its  mass  action  before  it  could 
seize  social  supremacy.  And  the  great  strikes  and 
demonstrations  in  Germany  and  Austria  during  Feb- 
ruary, 1918,  potentially  revolutionary  in  character, 
were  a  form  of  mass  action  that  broke  loose  against 
the  open  opposition  of  the  dominant  Socialist  and 
union  organizations,  and  that  were  crushed  by  this 
opposition.  Mass  action  is  the  proletariat  tiself  in 
action,  dispensin^jvitib^u^gaucrats  and  intellectuals 
acting  through  its  own  initiative;  and  it  is  precisely 
this  circumstance  that  horrifies  the  soul  of  petty 
bourgeois  Socialism.  The  masses  are  to >jict  upon  their_ 
own  initiative  anc^the  impulse jjf Jtheir-own  struggles; 
it  is  the  function  of  the  revolutionary  Socialist  to 
provide  the  program  and  the  course  for  this  elemental 
action,  to  adapt  himself  to  the  new  proletarian  modes 
of  struggle. 

Mass  acjdon_orgaiiizes_aji£L develops  into  the  politk 
cal  strike  and  demonstration,  in  which  aj^eneral  politi- 
cal issue  is  the  source^, of_the  action.  Political  mass 
action  is  determined  not  by  the  struggle  for  wages, 
but  by  gejieralj£sjLiesj^_piime_p^^ 
in  which  the  proletariat  central  i^s  and  integrates  its 
forces,Tn  which  organized  and  unorganized  workers 


198  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

may  act  together  in  a  general  struggle  against  Capi- 
talism. This  concentration  of  forces  through  mass 
action  is  an^ndispejisable  condition  for  the  general 
revolutionary  struggles-in-tbe^  days  to  come. 
~~ Mass  action  may  consist  of  a  spontaneous  strike  of 
organized  workers  in  revolt  against  the  union  bureauc- 
racy; or,  as  is  most  usually  the  case,  of  the  strikes  and 
action  of  unorganized,  juiskilled  workers.  These  are 
primitive  forms  of  mass  action,  although  they  con- 
stitute the  genesis  of  the  general  mass  action  which 
may  include  workers,  organized  and  unorganized,  in 
various  industrial  groupings,  in  a  sweeping  struggle 
against  Capitalism  on  general  class  issues.  An  im- 
portant fact,  a  fact  that  disposes  of  the  cheap  sneers 
of  petty  bourgeois  Socialism  stigmatizing  these  mani- 
festations as  "anarchistic"  and  "slum  proletarian," 
is  that  these  mass  actions  are  an  expression  of  the  in- 
dustnaL^roletariat  against  tire  centralized  Jnsfiiitry 

of  dominant  Capitalism.     The  mass  that  functions 

_     — 

through  mass  action  is  the  industrial  proletarian  mass, 
the  cohesive  action  of  which  may  attract  other  social 
(  groups  to  the  great  struggle. 

As  an  historic  process,  mass  action  is  an  expression 
anoT  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  new  era  is  an 
eraof  violent  struggles,  ^Jjmjujute  crislifoFantagon- 
isms7"oFth~e~  impacToFtHe'  proletariat  InlTrevoIution- 
arysituation  against Capitalisin^folTtEedemiite  revo- 
lutionary conquest  of  power. 

Imperialistic  State  Capitalism,  while  trying  to  and 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  199 

temporarily  succeeding  in  softening  antagonisms,  act- 
ually and  fundamentally  multiplies  the  antagonisms 
and  contradictions  inherent  in  Capitalism.  These  an- 
tagonisms assume  a  violent  form,  equally  between 
nations,  and  between  the  proletariat  and  the  bour- 
geoisie. This  crisis  in  antagonisms  constitutes  the  so- 
cial-revolutionary era,  in  which  the  proletariat  is 
driven  to  violent  struggles  against  Capitalism  through 
mass  action.  ThgjSQcial-revolutionary  era  finds  its 


expressionamj_its^  tqptic  in  magjj^antion  :  this  is  die 
great  fact  of  contemporary  proletarian  development. 
f  revolution  nrmsists  ifl 


of_jhe__cLa5S-_piiw£r_jof_the  bourgeoisie  as  against  a 
strengthening  of  the  class  power  of  the  proletariat. 
The  class  power  of  the  proletariat  arises  out  of  the 
intensity  of  its  struggles  and  revolutionary  energy.  It 
consists,  moreover,  of  undermining  the  bases  of  the 
power  and  morale  of  the  capitalist  state,  a  process 
that  requires  extra-parliamentary  activity  through 
mass  action.  Capitalism  trembles  when  it  meets  the 
impact  of  a  strike  in  a  basic  industry;  Capitalism  will 
more  than  tremble,  it  will  actually  verge  on  a 
collapse,  when  it  meets  the  impact  of  a  general  mass 
action  invoIvjng_a_niiTnbp!r  of  correlated  industries, 
and  developing  into  revolutionary  mass  action  against 
the  whole  capitali8t__regime.  The  value  of  this  mass 
action  is  that  it  shows  the  proletariat  its  power,  weak- 
ens Capitalism,  and  compels  the  state  largely  to  de- 
pend upon  the  use  of  brutal  force  in  the  struggle,  either 


200  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

the  physical  force  of  the  military  or  the  force  of  legal 
terrorism;  this  emphasizes  antagonisms  between  pro- 
letarian and  capitalist,  widening  the  scope  and  deepen- 
ing the  intensity  of  the  proletarian  struggle  against 
Capitalism.  General  mass  action,  moreover,  a  prod- 
uct of  the  industrial  proletariat,  will,  by  the  impulse 
and  psychology  of  events  and  the  emphasizing  of 
antagonisms,  draw  within  the  orbit  of  the  struggle 
workers  still  under  the  control  of  the  craft  unions. 
1 1  Mass  action,  being  the  proletariat  itself  in  action, 
I  (loosens  its  energy,  develops  enthusiasm,  and  uni- 
vfies  the  action  of  the  workers  to  its  utmost  measure. 
It  is  this  concentration  of  proletarian  forces  that 
makes  mass  action  the  method  of  the  proletarian  revo- 
lution. It  is  this  dynamic  quality  of  mass  action  that 
makes  it  the  expression  of  an  era  in  which  the  prole- 
tariat throws  itself  in  violent  struggles  against  Capi- 
talism. The  proletarian  revolution  is  a  test  of  power, 
a  process  of  forcible  struggles,  an  epoch  in  which  the 

roletariat  requires  a  flexible  method  of  action,  aT 
method  of  action  that  will  not  only  concentrate  alT 
its  available  forces,  but  which  will  develop  itslmtia- 
tjvejmd  consciousness,  allowing  it  to  seize  and  use 
any  par^idarjnieans  pf^ jtruggle  in  accord  wit 
prevailing  situation  and  necessai 
tions. 

Moreover,  mass  action  means  the  repudiation  of 
bourgeois  democracy.  Socialism  will  come  not 
through  the  peaceful^  democratic  parliamentary  con- 


UNIONISM  AND  MASS  ACTION  201 

quest  of  the  state,  butthrough  the  determined  and 
revolutionary  mass  action  of  a  proletarian  minority. 
The  fetish  of  democracy  is  a  fetter  upon  the  prole-i 
tarian  revolution;  mass  action  smashes  the  fetish,  em- 
phasizing that  the  proletariat  recognizes  no  limits  to 
its  action  except  the  limits  of  its  own  power.  The 
proletariat  will  never  conquer  unless  it  proceeds  to 
struggle  after  struggle;  its  power  is  developed  and  its 
energy  let  loose  only  through  action.  Parliamentar- 
ism, in  and  of  itsel£,-£etter» proletarian  action;  pj> 
ganizations  are  often  equally  fetters  upon  action;  the 

proletariat  must  ap.t^grw^ajwjiys  «f.t?   through   action 

it  conquers.  The  great  merit  and  necessity  of  mass 
auction  is  that  it  frees  the  energy,  while  it  co-ordinates 
the  forces,  of  the  proletariat,  compels  the  proletariat 
to  act  uncompromisingly  and  reject  the  "rights"  of 
any  other  class;  and  action  destroys  hesitancy  and  a 
paltering  with  the  revolutionary  task.8 

8.  The  Council  [of  Workers  and  Soldiers,  during  the  earlier  period  of  the 
Russian  Revolution,  when  the  Menshevik  and  Social-Revolutionist  moderates  were 
in  control]  hesitates;  and  out  of  hesitancy  conies  compromise.  It  imagines  that  the 
course  of  the  Revolution  may  be  determined  by  interminable  discussions  among  the 
intellectuals:  it  acts  only  under  pressure  of  the  revolutionary  masses.  It  talks  revolu- 
tion, while  the  government  acts  reaction.  It  takes  refuge  in  proclamations,  in 
discussion,  in  appeals  to  a  pseudo-theory,  in  everything  save  the  revolutionary  action 
of  the  masses  directed  aggressively  to  a  solution  of  the  pressing  problems  of  the 
day  ....  Where  revolutions  do  not  act  immediately,  particularly  the  proletarian 
revolution,  reaction  appears  and  controls  the  situation;  and  the  formerly  revolu- 
tionary representatives  of  the  masses  accept  and  strengthen  this  reaction.  Once 
revolutionary  ardor  cools,  the  force  of  bourgeois  institutions  and  control  of  indus- 
try weights  the  balance  in  favor  of  the  ruling  class.  Revolutions  march  from  action 
to  action :  action,  more  action,  again  action,  supplemented  by  an  audacity  that 
shrinks  at  nothing, — these  arc  the  tactics  of  the  proletarian  revolution  ....  The 
Council  hampers  and  tries  to  control  the  instincts  and  action  of  the  masses,  in- 
stead of  directing  them  in  a  way  that  leaves  the  initiative  to  the  masses — developing 
that  action  of  the  masses  out  of  which  class  power  arises  ....  Instead  of  action — 
phrases;  instead  of  Revolution — a  paltering  with  the  revolutionary  task  ....  Its 
failure  to  act  accordingly  marked  the  decline  of  its  power  and  influence  as  then 
constituted:  the  task  of  the  Council  now  became  that  of  revolutionizing  itself,  of 
discarding  its  old  policy  and  personnel.  And  this  revolutionary  process  could  develop 
only  out  of  the  masses,  not  out  of  the  Council's  intellectual  representatives:  these 
representatives  had  to  be  thrust  aside,  brutally  and  contemptuously. — Louis  C.  Fraina, 
"The  Proletarian  Revolution  in  Russia,"  The  Class  Struggle,  January-February  1918. 


202  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

The  great  war  has  objectively  brought  Europe  to 
the  verge  of  revolt.  Capitalist  society  at  any  moment 
may  be  thrust  into  the  air  by  an  upheaval  of  the  pro- 
letariat,— as  in  Russia.  Whence  will  the  impulse  for 
the  revolutionary  struggle  come?  Surely  not  from 
the  moderate  Socialism  and  unionism,  which  are 
united  solidly  in  favor  of  an  imperialistic  war;  surely 
not  from  futile  parliamentary  rhetoric,  even  should  it 
be  revolutionary  rhetoric.  The  impulse  will  come 
out  of  the  m^sj^ction^of^ie  proletariat,  jnd  it  is 
this  mass  action  alone  that  canjsweep  aside  the  hesit- 
ancy and  the  risks,  that  can  topple  over  the  repressions 
and  power  oFthe  bourgeois  state.  Mass  action  is  the 
dynamic  impulse  of  the  revolutionary  proletarian 
struggle,  whatever  the  specific  form  it  may  assume; 
in  the  actual  revolutionary  period,  mass  action  unites 
all  forms  of  struggle  in  one  sweeping  action  against 
•Capitalism,  each  contributing  its  share  as  integral 
phases  of  the  general  mass  action, — as  in  the  prole- 
tarian revolution  in  Russia.  In  a  crisis,  the  state 
rigidly  controls  all  the  available  forces  of  normal  ac- 
tion; parliaments  become  impotent,  and  a  "state  of 
siege"  prevails  that  can  be  broken  through  only  by 
revolutionary  mass  action, — equally  during  war  and 
in  any  revolutionary  situation. 

Mass  action  is  dynamic,  pliable,  creative;  the  pro- 
letariat through  mass  action  instinctively  adapts  itself 
to  the  means  and  tactics  necessary  in  a  prevailing  situ- 
ation. The  forms  of  activity  of  the  proletariat  are  not 


203 


limited  and  stultified  by  mass  action,  they  are  broad- 
ened, deepened  and  co-ordinated.     Mass  action  is, 

egually  a  praceaa.  nf  revolution   and   tfrf   R 

itself  in  operation. 


XII 
THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION. 

THE  theory  of  the  gradual  transformation  of  Capi- 
talism  into  Socialism,  of  a  peaceful  "growing  into** 
Socialism,  rlppfmrk^ipnn  t^yo  a  ssiimptigns  :  the  col- 
lectivism  of  State  Capitaligjn  is  an  approach  to  So- 
cialism, that  will  gradually  and  of  its  own  compulsion 
become  transformed  into  Socialism;  and  State  Capi- 
talism,  operating  jointly  with  an  enlightened  and  or- 
ganized working  class,  will  succeed  in  limiting  and  re- 
straining the  economic  forces  of  Capitalism,  j)ur 
analysis^oT  acfaaj_fatcts_and  forces  shows,  however, 
that  State^apitalism  means  Capitalism  at  the  violent 
climax  of  its  development,  intensifying  the  subjection 
of  the  prolfttariaj^flTifl  thp.  domination  of  the  capitalist 


class.  The  economic  forces  of  Capitalism  have  not 
been  limited,  they  have  burst  forth  in  a  violent  up- 
heaval, the  most  violent  of  the  ages;  and  these  forces 
will  burst  forth,  in  new  upheavals  unless  directed  into 
the  channel  of  Social  Revolution.  Nor  have  the  organ- 
izations of  the  workers  succeeded  in  restraining  the 
tendencies  of  Capitalism  :  the  imperialistic  Capitalism 

204 


THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION  205 

of  Germany,  France  and  Great  Britain,  in  which  oper- 
ate powerful  Socialist  and  labor  organizations,  have 
precipitated  the  proletariat  and  the  world  into  a  catas- 
trophe the  agony  and  oppression  of  which  are  in- 
conceivable. If  all  this  means  a  limiting  of  the  forces 
of  Capitalism  and  a  "growing  into"  Socialism,  then 
may  heaven  have  mercy  upon  the  world  and  the  pro- 
letariat! 

This  theory  often  appears  in  pseudo-Marxian  garb ; 
£t  is,  in  fact,  a  distortion  and  a  repudiation  of  Marx- 
ism. 

Marxism  conceives  the  Social  Revolution  as  a  dyna- 
mic process  of  proletarian  struggles  in  a  period  when 
the  forces  of  production  in  capitalist  society  come  in 
conflict  with  the  old  relations  of  production,  relations 
which  develop  into  fetters  upon  the  productive  pro- 
cess.  This  conflict  creates  a  social-revolutionary  crisis, 
a  revolutionary  situation  and  a  breach  in  the  old  order 
in  which  the  proletariat  breaks  through  for  action  and 
the  conquest  of  power.    All  the  developments  of  bour-\ 
geois  society  simply  produce  the  objective  conditions! 
for  the  proletarian  revolution  out  of  which  emerges! 
Socialism;  these  developments  alone  never  can  and/ 
won't  bring  Socialism.     The  process  consists^  of  two' 
phases:  the  objective  development  of  Capitalism^ jmd_ 
tEe~subjective  development  of  the  proletariat.    Histor- 
icallyTthese  two  phases  of  the  process  are  one;  act- 
ually, they  are  not  necessarily  a  unity:  Germany,  with 
an  intense  development  of  Capitalism  and  an  appar 


206  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

i  ently  mature  proletariat,  has  not  yet  developed  a  pro- 
i  letarian  revolution,  in  spite  of  the  revolutionary  ac- 
*  tivity  of  capitalistically  inferior  Russia. 

The  epoch  of  Imperialism,  which  means  Capitalism 
at  the  climax  of  its  development,  meets  the  require- 
ments of  the  Marxian  analysis.  All  the  violence,  all 
the  upheavals  of  Imperialism  are  symptoms  of  the 
revolt  of  Capitalism  against  the  fetters  placed  upon 
the  productive  forces.  The  requirements  of  develop- 
ing Capitalism  are  incompatible  with  the  capitalist 
forms  of  production.  The  crisis  is  acute.  Capital- 
ism strives  to  break  the  fetters,  annihilate  the  multi- 
plying contradictions,  through  State  Capitalism  and 
Imperialism,  only  to  strengthen  the  fetters  and  in- 
crease the  contradictions,  resulting  in  a  mad,  violent 
and  destructive  world  war.  The  economic  and  social, 
the  political  and  national  bases  of  Capitalism  are 
now  fetters  upon  the  forces  of  production:  the  fetters 
-must  be  broken,  they  can  be  broken  only  by  the  Social 
Revolution;  and  Capitalism  writhes  in  the  agony  of 
its  struggles,  a  mad  beast  rending  itself  and  the  world. 
Imperialism,  accordingly,  introduces  a  new  epoch 
in  Capitalism,  the  social-revolutionary  epoch.  Ob- 
jectively, a  revolutionary  situation  prevails;  subjec- 
tively, the  proletariat  must  prepare  itself  for  the  final 
revolutionary  struggle  against  Capitalism. 

It  is  the  tragedy  of  Imperialism  that  it  can  produce 
maggots  only.  It  cannot,  except  temporarily,  dispose 
of  the  contradictions  implied  in  a  fettering  of  the 


THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION  207 

forces  of  production.  The  imperialistic  nation  seeks 
to  broaden  the  base  of  its  economic  activity  through 
conquest  and  the  development  of  new  territory;  but 
in  accomplishing  this,  the  base  is  correspondingly 
narrowed  for  other  nations,  and  for  the  world.  And 
even  the  imperialistically  triumphant  nation  secures 
only  momentary  relief:  the  new  territory  is  developed, 
and  again  there  is  a  surplus  of  commodities  and  of 
capital,  again  the  vicious  circle  of  production  of 
means  of  production  for  new  commodity  production; 
and  again  within  the  triumphant  nation  itself  there  is 
a  crisis,  supplemented  by  still  more  acute  crises  within 
the  defeated  nations.  A  new  upheaval  arises,  new 
and  more  violent  wars,  new  and  more  intense  waste. 
War  becomes  the  normal  aspect  of  Imperialism. 

There  is  no  alternative  for  the  proletariat:  either 
r  and  again  war,  or  the  Social  Revolution. 
it  The  world  war  has  brought  Capitalism  to  the  verge 
*of  collapse.  It  has  compelled  the  state  to  lay  a  dic- 
tatorial hand  upon  the  process  of  production,  and  the 
nation  to  negate  its  own  basis  by  striving  to  break 
through  the  limits  of  the  nation.  It  has  compelled  in- 
dustrial necessity  to  subordinate  itself  to  the  over- 
whelming fact  of  military  necessity.  The  debts  of 
the  belligerent  nations  are  colossal,  and  they  will 
fetter  the  nations,  constitute  a  crucial  problem  in  the 
days  to  come.  The  war  has  weakened  Capitalism 
while  it  has  strengthened  a  fictitious  domination  of 
the  capitalist  class.  Contradications  and  antagonisms 


208  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

have  been  multiplied.  War  has  become  the  normal 
occupation  of  Capitalism,  and  the  transition  to  peace 
will  shake  Capitalism  to  its  foundations,  posing  new 
and  more  acute  problems  for  solution.  Industry  will 
have  to  adjust  itself  to  a  peace  basis,  and  it  will  be 
a  herculean  task;  the  proletariat  will  have  to  adjust 
itself  to  the  new  conditions,  new  struggles  and  new 
problems,  and  the  experiences  of  war  are  not  calcu- 
lated to  make  it  submissive. 

The  proletariat  will  find  upon  the  conclusion  of 
peace  that  all  its  sacrifices  have  availed  it  naught, 
and  that  the  old  system  of  exploitation  persists  in  in- 
tensified form.  Capitalism  will  equally  find  that  war 
has  availed  it  naught:  its  old  economic  problems  will 
not  have  been  solved  and  new  problems  have  been 
created.  Will  Capitalism  answer  with  a  feverish  era 
of  industrial  expansion?  But  war  debts  will  weigh 
upon  the  nation,  and  an  era  of  expansion  will  simply 
hasten  the  new  crisis  and  a  new  war.  There  is  a 
point  where  Capitalism  comes  up  against  an  impasse 
in  the  industrial  process.  The  forces  of  production 
inexorably  generate  new  contradictions  and  crises. 
Capitalism  verges  on  collapse. 

The  fatalist  uses  these  facts,  and  they  are  facts,  as 
an  arument  for  aninevitable 


xl  an  equaH^Tmevitable  comlngof  Socialism.  The 
argument  is  as  futile  as  it  is  fatalistic.  The  world 
war,  in  which  millions  of  workers  have  sacrificed  and 
died  in  the  cause  of  Imperialism,  is  a  warning  of  an 


THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION  209 

alternative.  The  fatalist  attitude  in  practice  allows 
Capitalism  to  dispose  of  things  in  its  own  brutal  way. 
And  instead  of  a  coming  of  Socialism,  the  world  may 
see  the  coming  of  a  new  barbarism,  the  "common 
ruin  of  the  contending  classes."  If  war  becomes  the 
normal  state  of  society,  if  the  proletariat  as  the  mod- 
ern revolutionary  class  has  not  the  initiative  and  the 
energy  to  assume  control  of  society,  then  instead  of 
a  new  society  we  shall  have  a  new  era  of  rapine  and 
conquest.  Europe  rending  itself,  Europe  and  Amer- 
ica rending  each  other,  and  the  two  rending  Asia,  or 
Asia  rending  them  all.  A  collapse  of  Capitalism,  in 
one  form  or  another,  is  inevitable;  but  the  coming  of 
Socialism  is  not  equally  inevitable.1  It  may  become 
a  collapse  of  all  civilization. 

What  determined  the  supremacy  of  the  bourgeoisie 

'was  its  possession  of  actual  material  power,  of  the 
ownership  of  capital.  It  was  a  propertied  class,  and 
property  as  a  class  prerogative  imparts  power  and 

\ultimate  ascendancy.  The  proletariat  is  a  non-proper- 
tied, an  expropnatedLclass;_ what  will  determine  its 

1.  Let  there  be  no  fatalism  in  our  councils.  The  Socialist  Republic  is  no 
pro-destined  inevitable  development.  .  .  .  The  Socialist  Republic  will  not  leap 
into  existence  out  of  the  existing  social  loom,  like  a  yard  of  calico  is  turned  out  by 
a  Northrop  loom.  Nor  will  its  only  possible  architect,  the  Working  Class — that  is, 
the  wage  earner,  or  wage  slave,  the  modern  proletariat — figure  in  the  process  as  a 
mechanical  force  moved  mechanically.  In  other  words,  the  world's  theatre  of 
Social  Evolution  is  not  a  Punch  and  Judy  box,  nor  are  the  actors  on  that  world's 
stage  mannikins,  operated  with  wires  ....  The  Socialist  Republic  depends,  not 
upon  material  conditions  only;  it  depends  upon  these — plus  clearness  of  vision  to 
assist  the  evolutionary  process  ....  Is  the  revolutionary  class  of  this  Age  living 
under  ripened  conditions  to  avail  itself  of  its  opportunity  and  fulfill  its  historic  mis- 
sion? Or  is  the  revolutionary  spark  of  our  Age  to  be  smothered  and  banked  up  till, 
as  in  Rome  of  old,  it  leap  from  the  furnace,  a  weapon  of  national  suicide?  In 
sight  of  the  invasion  of  the  Philippine  Islands  and  the  horrors  that  are  coming 
to  light,  is  there  any  to  deny  that  the  question  is  a  burning  one? — Daniel  De  Leon, 
Two  Pages  From  Roman  History,  1902. 


210  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

supremacy  is  revolutionary  energy  and  integrity,  and 
tnese  alone. 

The  development  during  the  war  of  Socialist  so- 
cial-reformism into  social-Imperialism  is  an  acute  ex- 
pression of  a  danger  that  besets  the  proletariat.  Is  it 
imaginary,  is  it  inconceivable,  in  view  of  the  un- 
believable events  in  Europe,  that  the  proletariat,  in- 
stead of  an  instrument  of  revolution,  might  become 
an  instrument  of  imperialistic  conquest  and  spolia- 
tion? Only  an  uncompromising  adherence  to  the  revo- 
lutionary task,  only  the  conscious  and  definite  emer- 
gence of  revolutionary  Socialism,  may  avert  the  catas- 
trophe. The  subjective  factor  of  a  revolutionary  pro- 
letariat alone  will  convert  the  objective  conditions  of 
Capitalism  into  Socialism.  The  proletariat  will  act, 
but  its  action  must  be  directed.  It  may  be  skewed 
awry  by  petty  bourgeois  Socialism,  as  was  unsuccess- 
fully attempted  in  Russia  and  as  was  successfully 
done  in  Austria  and  Germany.  The  shortcomings  of 
the  dominant  Socialism  might  convert  proletarian  ac- 
tion into  a  weapon  of  proletarian  suicide.  The  tac- 
tics of  petty  bourgeois  Socialism  may  not  completely 
destroy  the  revolution,  but  they  may  hamper  it  and 
prolong  the  period  of  agony  of  imperialistic  Capital- 
ism. 

In  this  epoch  of  Imperialism,  of  war  and  catas- 
trophe, of  actual  and  potential  betrayals  of  the  pro- 
letariat, the  Socialist  cannot  swerve  from  the  funda- 
mentals of  Socialism.  Social-reformism  means  a  pal- 


THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION  211 

tering  with  the  revolutionary  task,  social-Imperialism 
means  a  betrayal  of  the  revolutionary  task:  and  it  is 
that  way  disaster  lies.  There  are  many  dangers  that 
beset  the  path  of  the  proletariat,  dangers  that  the 
Socialist  must  appreciate  and  guard  against.  The 
bourgeois  revolution  was,  in  a  sense,  automatic:  its 
possession  of  property  insured  its  ultimate  supremacy. 
Indeed,  the  bourgeois  revolution  triumphed  in  spite 
of  its  cowardly  hesitancy  and  vacillation,  in  spite  of 
disastrous  mistakes;  its  struggles  were  one  long  series 
of  compromises  with  the  feudal  class,  even  on  the 
verge  of  victory;  and  where  the  revolution  was  dras- 
tic and  definite,  as  in  France,  it  was  because  of  the 
courage  and  action  of  the  peasantry  and  the  city  pro- 
letarians. But  mistakes  may  be  fatal  to  the  prole- 
tariat, because  the  proletariat  is  an  expropriated  class. 
The  proletarian  revolution  is  not  in  any  sense  of  the 
word  an  automatic  process:  it  will  conquer  only 
through  uncompromising  action,  courageous  and  un- 
relenting adherence  to  the  class  struggle,  and  by  de- 
veloping the  necessary  clarity  of  understanding  of  the 
epoch  we  are  in,  an  understanding  that  will  avoid 
tactical  mistakes  and  offer  a  definite,  decisive  pro- 
gram of  revolutionary  action  to  the  proletariat. 

The  class  character  and  independence  of  the  revo- 
lution must  be  emphasized  under  any  and  all  condi- 
tions; the  proletariat  must  not  be  lured  into  com- 
promises either  with  Capitalism  or  its  own  organizai 
tions,  compromises  that  invade  its  class  integrity  and 


212  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

palsy  its  action.    On  with  the  struggle,  in  spite  of  all 
and  everything!    The  epoch  is  an  epoch  of  revolution- 

ry,  uncompromising  struggle  and  this  struggle  alone 

hall  prevail. 
The  processj>f 


impact  of  antagonisms  and  a  revolutionary  situation, 
develop  into  the  great  and  final  struggle,  —  an  intense, 
violent  and  uncompromising  struggle  against  Capi- 
talism. This  struggle  will  not  break  out  as  a  con- 
scious,  organized  struggle  for  Socialism:  it  will  break 
out  unHer  the  impulse  of  a  crisis,  through  mass  action. 
Itscharacter,  of  course,  will  initially  vary  in  accord 
with  prevailing  conditions,  although  probably,  at  first, 
animated  by  petty  or  vague  purposes.  And  its  course 
will  be  determined  by  the  sense  of  reality,  conscious- 
ness of  purpose  and  power  of  revolutionary  Socialism, 
its  capacity  to  propose  and  organize  a  revolutionary 
program  around  which  the  masses  may  rally  for  action 
and  the  conquest  of  power.  _0r^ajnzjn^^nd^irecting 
the  revolutiojijwil]L^e^ome_Jbe_supreme  task  of  So- 

Lglly  nf  its  jinrnrnprnmising  spirit 

sense  of  reality.  The  policy  of  revolutionary 
phrases  is  as  disastrous  as  the  policy  of  parliamentary 
rhetoric  and  dickering  with  the  bourgeois  state.  _Revo- 
lutigns_do^  not  rally_j|rojjnrl  Hngnias,  but  programs; 
andjhe  program  of  the  proletarian  revolution  must  hp 
aspractical^and  realistic  as  it  is__r_e.vnliitinnary_ainfl 
Reality  and  the  revolution  are  one, 


united  and  made  dynamic  by  the  class  character  of 


THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION  213 

the  proposals  and  purposes  of  the  proletariat  in  action. 

The  immediate  objective  of  the  proletarian  revolu- 
tion  is  the  conquest  of  the  power  j)f_ihe  .  Ptafrs  and 
thislneans  the  annihilation  of  the  bourgeois  state,  its 
parliamentary  system  and  bourgeois  democracy^  ajnd 
the  introduction  of  a  new  "state"  comprised  in  the 
dictatorship  of  the  proletariat.2  In  his  "Criticism  of 
the  Gotha  Program"  Marx  projected  this  phase  of  the 
proletarian  revolution: 

"Between  the  capjtajisj^and  the  npmTmiP"*  sys- 
tems  of  societylies  th 


formation  of  the  one_intojhe  other.  This  corresponds 
to  a  political  transition_perjod,  whose  state  canjbe 
nothing  else  than  the  revolutionary  dictatorship  of  the 

proletariat.!' 

The  alternative  to  this  dictatorship  of  the  pro- 
letariat is  the  bourgeois  state,   its  democracy  and 
parliamentary   system.      To   compromise   with   this 
system  is  to  yield  up  the  revolutionary  task  and  to 
allow  Capitalism  to  dominate.     The  parliamentary^ 
bourgeois  state  must  be  destroyed  not  simply  because*' 
it  is  the  ultimate  purpose  of  Socialism  to  do  awa/ 

2.  As  to  the  revolutionary  organization  and  its  task,  the  conquest  of  the  power 
of  the  state  and  militarism  :  From  the  praxis  of  the  Paris  Commune,  Marx  shows 
that  "the  working  class  cannot  simply  lay  hold  of  the  ready-made  machinery  of  the 
state,  and  wield  it  for  its  own  purposes."  The  proletariat  must  break  down  this 
machinery.  And  this  has  been  either  concealed  or  denied  by  the  opportunists.  But 
it  i*  the  most  valuable  lesson  of  the  Paris  Commune  and  of  the  Revolution  in 
Russia  of  1905.  The  difference  between  us  and  the  anarchists  is,  that  we  admit 
the  state  is  a  necessity  in  the  development  of  our  Revolution.  TJie  difference 
with  lh<!  uppuiluillsis  anil  the  Kauteky  disciples  is,  that  we  claim  we  do  not  ne.ed 
the~buuij<euis  Btate~  machinery  as  completed  in  the  "democratic"  bourgeois  republics. 
but  the  r)irrrt  power  of  armed  anil  organized  workers.  Strch  ts  the  state  we  needV 
Such  was  the  character  of  the  Commune  of  1871  and  of  the  Council  of  Workmen 
and  Soldiers  of  1905  and  1917.  On  this  basis  we  build.  —  N.  Lenin,  "The  Russia* 
Revolution,"  The  New  International,  June  30,  1917. 


214  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

with  the  state  as  constituted  in  bourgeois  society,  but 
ecause  it  is  immediately  necessary  in  the  process  of 
disposing  of  the  old  society  and  introducing  the  new. 
J.LJfL- jL.tflfitif>-fl1  necessity.  The  dictatorship  of  the 
proletariat  is  a  revolutionary  rgcogm'tinn  <*f  tV^  fa^t 
that  the  proletariat  alone  counts,  and  no  other  class 
has  any  ".rights."  The  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat 
places  all  power  in  the  control  of  the  proletariat,  and 
weakens  the  bourgeoisie,  makes  them  incapable  of 
any  concerted  action  against  the  Revolution.  J3rgan- 
ized  injijlicjalorship  of  thft  proletariat,  fa.  Tfovnlii^ 
tion  uimesitatingly^and  relejide^ljjpursues  its  task  ojF 
reconstructing  society  on  the  basis  of  communistSo- 
cialism. 

The  parliamentary  regime  is  the  expression  of  bour- 
geois democracy, — each  equally  an  instrument  for  the 

I  promotion  of  bourgeois  class  interests.  Parliamentar- 
ism, presumably  representing  ill  r,1  ai sses^  actually  rep- 
resents  and  promotes^  the  requirements  of  the  ruling 
class  alone.  Its  trappings  of  army,  police  and  judici- 
jry  are  indispensable  means  of  repression  used 
;ainst  the  proletariat,  and  the  proletariat  in  action 
annihilates  them  all:  in  place  of  the  army,  the  armed 

j proletarian  militia,  until  unnecessary;  in  place  of  the 
police,  disciplinary  measures  of  the  masses  them- 
selves; in  place  of  the  judiciary,  tribunals  of  work- 
men. The  bureaucratic  machinery  of  the  state  dis- 
appears. The  division  of  functions  in  the  parliamen- 
tary system  into  legislative  and  executive  has  for  its 


THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION  215 

direct  purpose  the  indirect  smothering  of  the  opposi- 
tion,— the  legislature  talks  and  represents  the  pre- 
tense of  "democracy,"  while  the  executive  acts  auto- 
cratically. The  parliamentary  system  is  a  fetter  up- 
on revolutionary  class  action  in  the  epoch  of  the  ftoal 
struggle  against  Capitalism.  The_proletarian  revolu- 
:ion  annihilates  the j^arlimentary  jsystenL _an d Jitsjlp 
yisTorTof  functions,  legislative  and  executive  being 
united  in  one  body, — as  in  the  Paris  Commune  and  in 


tEe  Russian  Councils  of  Workers  and  Peasants. 

The  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  moreover,  an- 
nihilates bourgeois  dejrnocrajcy.  All  democracy  is  re- 
lative,  is  class  democracy^  As  an  historical  category, 
democracy  is  a  form  of  authority  of  one  class  over 
another;  bourgeois  democracy  is  the  form  of  expres- 
sion of  the  authority  and  tyranny  of  Capitalism. 
Authority  is  an  instrument  of  class  rule,  historically: 
Socialisni  destroys  authority.  The  democracy  of  So- 
cialism, the  self-government  of  the  proletarian  masses, 
discards  the  democracy  of  Capitalism  —  relative 
democracy  is  superseded  by  the  individual  and  social 
autonomy  of  communist  Socialism.  The  proletarian 
revolution  does  not  allow  the  "ethical  concepts"  of 
bourgeois  democracy  to  interfere  in  the  course  of 
events:  it  ruthlessly  sweeps  aside  "democracy"  in  the 
process  of  revolutionary  transformation.  ^Capitalism 
hypocritically  insists  upon  a  government  of  all  the 
classes;  the  Revolution  frankly  and  fearlessly  intro- 
duces the  government  of  one  class,  the  proletariat, 


216  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

through  a  proletarian  dictatorship.  The  proletarian 
revolution  is  inexorable;  it  completely  and  ruthlessly 
annihilates  the  institutions  and  ideology  of  the  regime 
of  communist  Socialism.3 

This  problem  of  democracy  is  crucial  in  the  prole- 
tarian revolution.  Democracy  becomes  the  last  bul- 
wark of  defense  of  Capitalism,  an  instrument  used  by 
dominant  Capitalism  and  the  petite  bourgeoisie  in  a 
last  desperate  defense  of  private  property.  Any  com- 
promise on  the  issue  of  democracy  compromises  the 
integrity  of  the  Revolution,  stultifies  its  purposes  and 
palsies  its  action:  it  is  an  issue  pregnant  with  the 
potentiality  of  fatal  mistakes.  And  yet  it  is  all  sim- 
plicity itself:  in  the  revolution,  the  proletariat  may 
depend  upon  itself  alone;  it  alone  is  necessary  in  the 
process  of  production;  it  alone  is  a  revolutionary 
class,  implacably  arrayed  against  all  other  classes; 
it  alone  counts  as  a  class  in  the  reconstruction  of  so- 
ciety,— and,  accordingly,  the_dictatorship  of  the_pro- 

3.  During  the  course  of  events  in  Russia,  democracy  was  a  fetter  upon  the 
development  of  the  proletarian  revolution;  once  this  revolution  was  accomplished, 
/democracy  became  a  counter-revolutionary  instrument  used  by  the  petty  bourgeois 
Socialism  of  the  Mensheviki  and  Social-Revolutionists  of  the  Right  through  the 
Constituent  Assembly.  If  the  Soviet  government  had  not  dissolved  the  Constituent 
Assembly,  it  would  have  stultified  itself  and  the  Revolution.  The  Revolution, 
1  declared  the  decree  of  dissolution,  created  the  Workers'  and  Soldiers'  Council — the 
<only  organization  able  to  direct  the  struggle  of  the  exploited  classes  for  complete 
political  and  economic  liberation;  this  Council  constituted  a  revolutionary  government 
1  through  the  November  Revolution,  after  perceiving  the  illusion  of  an  understanding 
with  the  bourgeoisie  and  its  deceptive  parliamentary  organization ;  the  Constituent 
Assembly,  being  elected  from  the  old  election  lists,  was  the  expression  of  the 
old  regime  when  authority  belonged  to  the  bourgeoise,  and  necessarily  became  the 
authority  of  the  bourgeois  republic,  setting  itself  against  the  revolution  of  November 
and  the  authority  of  the  Councils;  the  old  bourgeois  parliamentarism  has  had  it* 
day  and  is  incompatible  with  the  tasks  before  Socialism,  and  that  only  such  institu- 
tions as  the  Workmen's  and  Soldiers'  Councils  are  able  to  overcome  the  oppositios 
of  the  ruling  classes  and  create  a  new  Socialist  state;  "the  central  executive  com- 
mittee, therefore,  orders  the  Constituent  Assembly  dissolved." 


THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION  217 

letariatjrefuses  political  <<righta!l_and  recognition  to 
any  section_of  the  bourgeois  class. 

proletariat,  ^organizes 


itself  as  the  ruling  class,  Acquires  social  supremacy. 
The  basis  of  the  new  "state"  is  not^  territorial,  but 
industrial;  its  c^st^ents_are^tEeorganized  produc- 
ers.^  The_pdier_elemeiits  of  the  people  function  in  this 

that  they  are 


absorbed  jinjhe  new  industrial  scheme  oFthingsT  \&- 
come  useful  producers.  The  process  of  transforma- 
tion Th~fo~"con^^  die 


organized  producers,  and  of  these  alone.4 

The  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  naturally,  will 
have  many  acute  problems  press  upon  it.  Civil  war, 
a  revolutionary  war,  problems  of  general  social  re- 
construction, —  all  these  are  problems  that  will  call 
forth  all  of  the  energy,  clarity  and  capacity  of  the 
proletarian  revolution.  The  central  problem,  of 
course,  is  the  problem  01  economic-  r^constmctioiL. 
The  particular  initial  form  that  this  reconstruction 
assumes  will  depend  upon  a  number  of  factors,  par- 
ticularly the  factor  of  the  degree  of  industrial  de- 
velopment. In  the  Communist  Manifesto,  Marx  and 
Engels  said:  "The  proletariat  will  use  its  political  su- 
premacy to  wrest,  by  degrees,  all  capital  from  the 
bourgeoisie;  to  centralize  all  instruments  of  produc- 


4.  "The  economic  activity  of  the  modern  state,"  says  Karl  Kautsky  in  The 
Erfurt  Program,  "is  the  natural  starting  point  of  the  development  that  leads  to  the 
Co-operative  Commonwealth."  On  the  contrary;  the  natural  starting  point  is  th« 
economic  activity  of  the  producer!  functioning  industrially  as  an  organized  system. 


218  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

tion  in  the  hands  of  the  state — that  is,  of  the  prole- 
tariat organized  as  the  ruling  class;  and  to  increase 
the  total  of  productive  forces  as  rapidly  as  possible. 
Of  course,  in  the  beginning  this  cannot  be  effected  ex- 
cept by  means  of  despotic  inroads  on  the  rights  of 
property  and  on  the  conditions  of  bourgeois  produc- 
tion; by  measures,  therefore,  which  appear  economic- 
ally insufficient  and  untenable,  but  which  in  the  course 
of  the  movement,  outstrip  themselves,  necessitate  fur- 
ther inroads  upon  the  old  social  order  and  are  un- 
avoidable as  a  means  of  entirely  revolutionizing  the 
mode  of  production."  The  proletariat,  in  short,  lays 
a  dictatorial  hand  upon  production.  The  control  of 
industry  is  centralized  in  the  administrative  norms  of 
tEe  new  proletarian  state. 

The_dictatprshirj  of  the  proletariat  does  not,  neces- 
sarily, dispose  all  at  once  of  the  capitalist;  what  it 
does  dispose  of  immediately  are  the  prerogatives  of 
the  capitalist  as  a  capitalist.  The  society  of  commun- 
ist Socialism  does  not  come  into  being  as  Minerva  out 
of  the  head  of  Jove:  it  is  a  process  of  transformation 
of  the  old  into  the  new.  The  rapidity  of  this  trans- 

legree_Qf  economic  cle- 


velopment,  and  the  rapidity  with  which  the  organized 
producers  develop  their  own  administrators.  In  a 

concentrated  industry,  where  the  process  of  production 
is  managed  by  the  technical  staff  and  administrators, 
the  capitalist  is  abolished  at  once ;  where  not,  the  capi- 
talist is  retained  and  impressed  into  service  as  an  ex-i 


THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION  219 

pert  and  administrator,  temporarily,  until  the  whole 
process  works  itself  out  in  complete  industrial  com- 
munism. Proletarian  control  is  transformed  into  pro- 
letarian administration  in  all  its  phases,  as  the  neces- 
sary maturity  and  institutions  are  developed. 

The  old  relations  of  capitalist  production  are  not 
torn  asunder  as  one  tears  up  a  scrap  of  paper.  The 
process  is  one  of  adaptation  of  means  to  purposes  and 
of  purposes  to  means.  This  may  appear  as  the  argu- 
ment of  petty  bourgeois  Socialism;  but  there  is  all 
the  difference  in  the  world  whether  the  process  pro- 
ceeds on  the  basis  of  bourgeois  private  property  and 
under  control  of  the  bourgeois  state,  or  whether  it 
proceeds  on  the  basis  of  proletarian  control  and  a 
state  of  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat.  The  one 
promotes  Capitalism  and  is  a  negation  of  Socialism, 
the  other  promotes  Socialism  and  is  a  negation  of 
Capitalism. 

The  proletariat's  dictatorial  control  of  production 
develops,  on  the  one  hand,  the  forces  of  production; 
and,  on  the  other,  it  develops  the  communist  adminis- 
tration of  thejndustrial  process.  At  firs^the  admin- 
istration of  control  functions  through  general  organ- 
izations, Councils_of  Workers.  These  organizations 
are  gradually  integrated,  adapted  to  industrial  di- 
visions ;  and  it  is  precisely  at  this  point  that  industrial 
unionism,  whether  actual  or  potential,  functions_m 
the  construction  of  the  new  society.  Industry  as  a 
whole  is  divisible  into  constituent  units, — -the  produc- 


220  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

tion  of  coal,  of  steel,  of  textiles,  agriculture,  trans- 
portation, etc.  Each  industry  will  constitute  a  depart- 
ment of  the  industrial  state;  the  workers  in  each  in- 


organize  in  Local  Co^^ilsand  tEese  uHtte 
into  General  Industrial  Councils  coordinated  with 
other  General  Industrial  Councils  into  a  central  ad- 
ministration of  the  whole  productive  process.  Indus- 
trial unionism,  organizing  the  producers  industrially, 
becomes  the  vital  basis  of  the  new  communist  society, 
together  with  other  administrative  norms  necessary  to 
co-ordinate  the  non-industrial  activity  of  society. 

The  industrial  ^.dministradpn  of  communist  So- 
cialism institutes  all  the  centralization  necessary  and 
compatible7  with^jutonomy,  and  all  the  autonomy 
necessary  and  compatible  with  centralization.  The 
central  administration  is  directive,  and  not  repressive; 
it  co-ordinates  the  whole  industrial  process  as  the 
General  Industrial  Council  co-ordinates  each  phase 
of  its  particular  industry;  its  functions  are  comprised 
in  the  statistical  regulation  and  directive  control  of 
the  forces  of  production. 

Tlie  division  of  Jthe_product  is  ultimately  deter- 
mined on  a  communistic  basis:  from  each  according 
to  his  abiljty^tp  qqch  a.cnording_to_his  needs. 

The  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  is  temporary,  its 
necessity  ceasing  as  the  task  of  destroying  the  old  or- 
der jind  organizing  the  new  is  accomplished.  The 
rapidity  of  this  development  depends  upon  the  mat- 
urity of  proletarian  consciousness  and  class  power,| 


THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION  221 

pon  the  relation  of  social  forces  within  the  nation 
and  upon  the  general  international  situation.  The 
development  of  the  proletarian  revolution  lets  loose 
violent  antagonisms  within  the  nation,  and  the  vital- 
ity of  these  antagonisms  will  affect  the  rapidity  of 
development;  the  proletarian  revolution,  moreover, 
lets  loose  equally  violent  international  antagonisms. 
As  the  revolutionary  proletariat  reconstructs  society, 
it  may  find  itself  compelled  simultaneously  to  wage 
civil  wars  and  revolutionary  wars.  It  may  even,  tem- 
porarily, meet  defeat:  the  process  consists  of  a  series 
of  revolutionary  struggles.  But  the  proletarian 
revolution,  acting  through  the  dictatorship  of  the 
proletariat,  actual  or  potential,  partial  or  complete, 
adhering  firmly  to  the  class  struggle  and  revolutionary 
Socialism,  is  determined  in  a  course  of  action  against 
which  nothing  but  betrayals  can  prevail. 


Supplementary 


I 

IMPERIALISM  IN  ACTION 

By  Louis  C.  Fraina;  reprinted  from  "The  Class  Struggle," 
September  •  October,  1918. 

THE  institution  of  the  Federal  Reserve  System  during  the 
first  administration  of  Woodrow  Wilson  was  an  important 
development  in  the  amalgamation  of  Capitalism  and  Im- 
perialism. It  realized,  if  not  wholly,  at  least  sufficiently  for 
all  purposes,  the  dream  of  finance-capital  for  a  central  bank. 
The  older  dream  had  been  a  central  bank  completely  domin- 
ated by  Big  Capital,  an  expression  of  the  epoch  when  a  few 
financial  magnates  maintained  supremacy,  often  to  the  in- 
jury of  Capitalism  as  a  whole.  But  with  the  amalgamation 
of  Capitalism  and  Imperialism  into  State  Capitalism,  with 
the  disappearance  of  America's  splendid  isolation,  and  the 
recognition  of  the  necessity  of  a  united  capitalist  class  in 
the  struggles  of  Imperialism  and  to  secure  world  power,  the 
older  conception  of  a  central  bank  had  to  be  modified.  It 
could  no  longer  be  simply  an  instrument  of  Big  Capital; 
dominantly  and  necessarily  an  instrument  of  finance-capital, 
the  central  bank  under  the  new  conditions  had  to  make 
ample  provisions  for  the  lesser  groups  and  interests  of  Capi- 
talism, become  the  instrument  of  a  larger  Capitalism.  The 
Federal  Reserve  System  met  these  requirements  adequately. 
It  unified  the  banking  system  of  the  country,  solved  minor 
antagonisms  and  amalgamated  Capitalism,  and  freed 
finance-  capital  for  the  struggle  to  secure  the  financial  su- 
premacy of  the  world. 

225 


226  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

The  war  offerd  a  splendid  opportunity  for  financial  su- 
premacy, and  the  Federal  Reserve  System,  centralized  in 
the  Federal  Reserve  Board,  responded  successfully  to  the 
opportunity.  Upon  his  resignation  on  August  9  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Federal  Reserve  Board,  Paul  M.  Warburg,  an 
active  factor  in  the  organization  and  operation  of  the  Fed- 
eral Reserve  System,  summarized  its  achievements  in  one 
sentence:  "Nothing  but  mismanagement  could  wrest  the 
financial  premiership  of  the  world  from  us."  American 
Capitalism  has  definitely  emerged  into  the  epoch  of  inter- 
national Imperialism. 

The  financial  supremacy  of  the  United  States  in  world 
affairs  is  a  direct  consequence  of  its  developing  Imperial- 
ism. The  centralization  of  the  banking  system,  itself  an 
expression  of  the  amalgamation  of  Capitalism  and  Im- 
perialism in  State  Capitalism,  was  a  decisive  instrument  of 
action,  the  war  accelerating  the  process  by  means  of  an  un- 
usual opportunity.  Mr.  Warburg,  in  an  interview  in  the 
New  York  Times  of  August  18,  pictures  the  process  in  ex- 
cellent terms.  Speaking  of  the  form  of  the  Federal  Reserve 
System,  he  says: 

"From  a  technical  and  banking  standpoint,  it  might  have  been  a 
better  system  to  have  one  central  bank  with  branches.  Centralization 
is  always  an  economy  of  power,  and  makes  for  greater  efficiency.  For 
political  and  other  reasons  it  was  essential  to  have  the  system  as  it  is, 
and  the  proof  of  its  wisdom  lies  in  its  success.  With  political,  econo- 
mic and  social  conditions  what  they  are,  a  central  bank  would  be 
likely  to  become  the  target  of  constant  political  attacks.  There 
would  always  be  suspicion  of  too  extended  a  concentration  of  con- 
trol either  by  capital  or  'politics.'  The  present  form  offers  a  better 
protection  in  this  regard,  and  the  present  system  ought  therefore  to 
be  better  protected  and  to  have  better  chance  for  untrammeled  de- 
velopment than  a  full-fledged  central  bank." 

The  "political,  economic  and  social  conditions"  mean  the 
epoch  of  Imperialism,  wherein  finance-capital  becomes  the 
instrument  of  the  whole  of  Capitalism,  and  not  simply  of 


IMPERIALISM  IN  ACTION  227 

a  few  dominant  groups;  wherein  the  process  of  expropria- 
tion takes  a  new  form,  being  no  longer  dominantly  the-  ex- 
propriation of  one  capitalist  by  another  capitalist  within 
the  nation,  but  the  expropriation  of  one  national  Capitalism 
by  another;  and  the  unifying  of  the  national  forces  of 
Capitalism  for  the  struggle  to  acquire  world-power.  De- 
scribing the  achievements  of  the  Federal  Reserve  System, 
Mr.  Warburg  says : 

"We  have  brought  into  effective  co-ordination  a  large  portion  of 
the  country's  banking  reserves.  We  have  regulated  and  brought  about 
a  general  understanding  of  modern  methods  of  re-discounting.  We 
have  created  a  world-wide  market  for  bankers'  acceptances,  so  that 
American  trade  is  now  largely  financed  by  our  own  acceptances 
instead  of  by  foreign  ones,  and  at  the  same  time  our  member  banks 
now  have  an  easy  means  of  recourse  to  the  Federal  Reserve  banks 
in  case  they  wish  to  replenish  their  reserves. 

"We  have  established  fiscal  agency  relations  with  the  Government 
and  perfected  an  instrument  which  has  proved  of  the  greatest  value 
in  placing  our  issues  of  Government  securities  ...  I  believe  I  may 
say  the  world  marvels  at  the  ease  with  which  we  are  constantly  trans- 
ferring hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  without  creating  any  disturb- 
ance. Without  the  Federal  Reserve  machinery  of  clearing  through 
the  gold  clearing  fund  and  without  the  redeposit  organization  de- 
veloped by  them,  acting  as  agents  for  the  Government,  that  would 
have  been  entirely  impossible. 

"The  Federal  Reserve  clearings  per  day  amount  now  to  over  $400,- 
000,000.  For  the  first  time  in  our  history  American  banks  have  gone 
into  foreign  countries  and  opened  branches — in  Asia,  Central  and 
South  America — as  adjuncts  to  our  growing  trade." 

Mr.  Warburg  realizes  that  these  problems  of  finance  are 
not  simply  problems  of  the  banks,  but  of  the  whole  of 
Capitalism.  He  realizes,  moreover,  the  tendency  toward 
the  amalgamation  of  Capitalism  and  Imperialism  into  State 
Capitalism: 

"In  Europe  after  the  war,  the  most  efficient  Government  promotion 
of  industries  in  many  lines  will  be  held  to  exist  in  actual  Govern- 
ment ownership  and  operation.  More  than  ever  will  states  become 
solid  industrial  and  financial  unions  effectively  organized  for  world 


228  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

competition,  driven  by  the  necessity  of  perfecting '  a  system  of  the 
greatest  efficiency,  economy  and  thrift  in  order  to  be  able  to  meet 
the  incredible  burdens  created  by  the  war. 

"In  this  world  of  the  future  we  shall  have  to  maintain  our  own  posi- 
tion, and  it  requires  on  our  part  thorough  organization  and  steady 
leadership.  Under  our  democratic  system  this  cannot  be  furnished 
by  changing  party  governments,  but  can  only  be  provided  by  fairly 
permanent,  non-partisan  and  expert  bodies.  These  bodies  must  com- 
bine the  judicial  point  of  view  with  that  of  active  and  constructive 
business  minds.  They  must  be  able  to  act  as  expert  advisers  to 
Congress  and  to  the  industries  concerned.  They  must  break  down  the 
suspicion  and  prejudice  of  Government  against  business  and  business 
against  Government.  They  must  stand  for  the  interest  of  all  against 
the  exaction  or  aggression  of  any  single  individual  or  group,  be  it 
called  labor  or  capital,  carrier  or  shipper,  lender  or  borrower, 
Republican  or  Democrat. 

"Our  ability  to  handle  effectually  the  great  economic  problems  of 
the  future  will  depend  upon  developing  boards  and  commissions  of 
sufficient  expert  knowledge  and  independence  of  character.  This 
will  be  possible  only  if  both  Government  and  people  fully  appreciate 
the  importance  of  such  bodies,  so  that  the  country  may  find  its  ablest 
sons  willing  to  render  public  service  worthy  of  the  personal  sacrifice 
it  entails.  .  .  . 

"It  appears  inevitable  that  America  will  be  one  of  the  dominating 
financial  powers  in  the  coming  era  of  peace.  Indeed,  if  we  play  our 
cards  right  and  if  the  war  ends  within  a  reasonable  time,  we  should 
be  the  dominating  financial  power  of  the  world.  When  peace  comes 
we  should  command  the  three  essentials  that  would  assure  us  an 
unassailable  strategic  commercial  position — the  raw  materials,  the 
ships  and  the  gold. 

"The  world  at  large  is  indebted  to  us.  Nothing  but  mismanagement 
could  wrest  the  financial  premiership  of  the  world  from  us." 

This  is  an  excellent  description,  by  a  dominant  actor  on 
the  stage  of  finance-capital,  of  the  characteristics  of  Im- 
perialism. "More  than  ever  will  states  become  solid  indus- 
trial and  financial  unions  effectively  organized  for  world 
competition";  boards  of  experts  are  to  become  the  real 
governing  factor  in  State  Capitalism,  since  the  problems  are 
complex  and  technical,  and  continuity  of  policy,  (which  the 
laggard  bourgeoisie  of  Finland  wish  to  secure  by  means  of 
a  Prussianized  monarchy),  is  indispensable  to  Imperialism; 


IMPERIALISM  IN  ACTION  229 

"organization  and  steady  leadership"  are  prime  require- 
ments, and  "under  our  democratic  system  this  cannot  be 
furnished  by  changing  party  governments."  This  is  precise- 
ly the  important  characteristic  of  Imperialism, — the  re- 
action against  democracy  and  the  parliamentary  system. 
"Changing  party  governments"  are  fundamental  to  bour- 
geois democracy  and  the  parliamentary  system;  the  abroga- 
tion of  their  function,  by  centralizing  actual  power  in  an 
administrative  dictatorship  and  administrative  boards, 
means  the  end  of  the  parliamentary  regime.  Imperialism 
requires  a  unified  Capitalism,  a  centralized  banking  system 
acting  through  finance-capital,  and  a  centralized  adminis- 
trative control,  parliaments  being  degraded  to  an  "advisory" 
capacity. 

The  acquisition  by  American  Capitalism  of  "the  financial 
premiership  of  the  world"  necessarily  means  a  transforma- 
tion of  its  foreign  policy.  The  indications  of  this  trans- 
formation have  been  many,  and  are  multiplying. 

In  1913,  the  Administration  declined  to  support  American 
participation  in  the  Six-Power  Loan  to  China,  President 
Wilson  declaring  that  the  terms  of  the  loan  "touch  very 
nearly  the  administrative  independence  of  China."  At  the 
time  this  action  was  considered  a  fundamental  departure 
from  accepted  policy  in  foreign  affairs,  and  the  initiation 
of  a  democratic  era  in  international  diplomacy.  But  in 
July  of  this  year  the  government  approved  the  proposed 
loan  of  $50,000,000  to  China  by  an  American  financial 
group,  agreeing  "to  make  prompt  and  vigorous  representa- 
tions and  to  take  every  possible  step"  to  insure  China's  ful- 
filling its  financial  obligations.  Moreover,  the  bankers  are 
throughout  to  be  guided  by  "the  policies  outlined  by  the 
Department  of  State."  This  is  a  unity  of  government  and 
finance-capital  characteristic  of  Imperialism. 


230  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

The  Six-Power  Loan  was  to  be  secured  by  China's  pledge 
of  the  salt  tax,  an  internal  levy,  as  security;  its  administra- 
tion was  to  be  reorganized  under  foreign  auspices,  and  if 
this  proved  unsatisfactory,  representatives  of  the  powers 
making  the  loan  might  assume  entire  control  of  the  tax — 
terms  which,  in  the  words  of  President  Wilson,  "touch  very 
nearly  the  adminstrative  independence  of  China."  But  this 
was  not  the  crux  of  the  issue;  the  decisive  feature  was  the 
political  character  of  the  loan,  the  governments  of  the 
bankers  becoming  its  guarantors.  The  new  American  loan 
to  China  is  based  on  no  security  at  all,  and  in  that  it  differs 
from  the  Six-Power  Loan;  but  is  identical  in  its  political 
character,  the  American  government  becoming  its  guaran- 
tor. This  is  a  political  transaction ;  and  political  loans  have 
been  a  fruitful  source  of  international  antagonisms.  In 
these  financial  tranactions  of  Imperialism,  a  government 
pledges  all  the  resources  of  diplomacy,  and  as  a  final  resort 
its  military  might,  to  assure  the  security  of  loans  and  in- 
vestments in  undeveloped  nations. 

This  transformation  in  foreign  policy  is  in  accord  with 
the  new  position  of  the  United  States  as  a  financial  world- 
power,  and  is  latent  with  dangerous  international  compli- 
cations. 

Recent  negotiations  with  Mexico  are  another  indication  of 
the  policy  of  Imperialism.  The  Mexican  government's  most 
difficult  problem  is  to  limit  the  power  of  foreign  capital, 
which  secured  a  strangle  hold  upon  the  country's  resources 
(and  politics)  through  the  concessions  of  the  Diaz  regime. 
The  new  constitution,  accordingly,  declares  that  "all  con- 
tracts and  concessions  made  by  the  former  government  from 
and  after  1876,  which  shall  have  resulted  in  the  monopoly 
of  land,  waters  and  natural  resources  of  the  nation  by  a 
single  individual  or  corporation,  are  declared  subject  to 


IMPERIALISM  IN  ACTION  231 

revision,  and  the  executive  is  authorized  to  declare  those 
null  and  void  which  seriously  prejudice  the  public  interest." 
Ownership  in  lands  or  waters  may  be  acquired  only  by 
Mexicans  "by  birth  or  naturalization,"  and  in  Mexican  com- 
panies subject  to  the  sovereign  authority  and  laws  of  Mex- 
ico; ownership  may  be  acquired  by  foreigners  "provided 
they  agree  before  the  department  of  foreign  affairs  to  be 
considered  Mexicans  in  respect  to  such  property,  and  ac- 
cordingly not  to  invoke  the  protection  of  their  government 
in  respect  to  the  same,  under  penalty,  in  case  of  breach,  of 
forfeiture  to  the  nation  of  property  so  acquired."  All  this 
is  simply  the  assertion  of  the  sovereignty  inherent  in  a  na- 
tion, and  indisputably  recognized  by  the  law  of  nations. 
The  problem  of  foreign  capital  is  a  crucial  problem  in 
Mexico,  the  prevailing  conditions  making  it  practically  an 
appanage  of  international  Imperialism.  The  raw  materials 
and  natural  wealth  of  Mexico  are  to  become  factors  in  the 
promotion  of  Mexican  Capitalism  and  national  supremacy, 
not  the  means  of  exploitation  of  international  finance-capi- 
tal and  Imperialism — this  is  the  policy  of  the  new  Mexico. 

Early  this  year  the  Mexican  government  promulgated  a 
law  imposing  a  heavy  tax  upon  the  development  of  oil,  a 
very  important  industry,  the  foreign  owners  of  which  having 
been  one  of  the  most  reactionary  and  brutal  factors  under 
the  Diaz  regime,  and  counter-revolutionary.  American  and 
British  interests  have  more  than  $300,000,000  invested  in 
the  oil  production  of  Mexico,  and  they  unanimously  de- 
clared that  the  new  tax  was  confiscatory.  They  appealed 
to  Ambassador  Fletcher,  who  discussed  their  grievances 
with  the  American  department  of  state.  In  April,  Ambas- 
sador Fletcher  transmitted  a  note  to  the  Mexican  govern- 
mentment,  declaring  the  tax  law  to  be  "confiscatory,"  that 
it  was  "taking  property  without  due  process  of  law,"  and 


232  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

that  "it  became  the  function  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States  most  earnestly  and  respectfully  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  Mexican  government  to  the  necessity  which 
may  arise  to  impel  it  to  protect  the  property  of  its  citizens 
in  Mexico  divested  or  injuriously  affected  by  the  decree 
above  cited.  If  Mexico  insists  upon  the  execution  of  the 
law,  there  can  be  only  one  result." 

This  interference  in  the  sovereign  affairs  of  a  nation  is  in 
accord  with  the  finest  traditions  of  imperialistic  diplomacy. 
The  power  to  tax  is  supreme,  and  cannot  be  abridged  by 
any  foreign  power  except  through  conquest.  According  to 
the  Constitution  of  Mexico,  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
land,  the  government  has  the  power  to  impose  this  tax;  if 
foreign  investors  consider  the  tax  illegal,  they  should  have 
recourse  to  the  Mexican  courts  for  redress,  if  any.  That  is 
the  procedure  in  all  strong  and  independent  nations.  In- 
stead, these  investors  adopt  the  imperialistic  means  of  ask- 
ing their  government  to  bring  political  pressure  to  bear 
upon  the  Mexican  government — to  violate  its  own  constitu- 
tion, and  act  as  if  it  was  the  fundamental  law  only  when 
it  wasn't  abrogated  by  the  power  of  a  foreign  government. 

This  attitude  of  the  investors  was  emphasized  by  an  inter- 
view recently  in  the  New  York  Times,  in  which  a  represen- 
tative of  oil  interests  in  Mexico  brazenly  and  unashamed 
proposed  a  conspiracy  to  compel  the  American  and  British 
governments  to  intervene  in  Mexico.  This  was  the  plan  of 
the  conspiracy:  the  Allied  navies  require  a  vast  amount  of 
oil,  and  most  of  it  now  comes  from  Mexico;  if  the  Mexican 
government  insists  upon  imposing  the  tax,  the  foreign  oil 
interests  will  cease  production,  the  Allied  navies  will  be 
irreparably  injured;  and  the  Allied  governments  will  be 
compelled,  as  a  war  measure,  to  intervene  in  Mexico.  The 
tactics  of  highwaymen  are  mild  in  comparison  with  this  pro- 


IMPERIALISM  IN  ACTION  233 

posed  conspiracy.  These  investors  are  out  to  secure  rights 
not  accorded  Mexican  citizens,  to  acquire  a  privileged  status 
above  the  law,  and  to  use  the  military  might  of  their  govern- 
ments as  an  instrument  to  promote  their  rapacious  plans 
of  plunder. 

Using  governments  as  instruments  of  finance-capital  is  an 
essential  procedure  of  Imperialism.  Accepted  as  a  policy, 
it  becomes  an  implacable  producer  of  antagonisms  latent 
with  the  threat  of  war. 

Imperialism  necessarily  abrogates  the  sovereignty  of  a 
nation  upon  which  it  would  prey.  The  Lansing-Ishii  Agree- 
ment concluded  between  the  United  States  and  Japan  last 
year,  is  of  a  character  to  impair  the  sovereignty  of  China. 
The  heart  of  the  Agreement  is  this:  "The  Governments  of 
the  United  States  and  Japan  recognize  that  territorial  pro- 
pinquity creates  special  relations  between  countries,  and, 
consequently,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  recog- 
nizes that  Japan  has  special  interests  in  China,  particularly 
in  the  part  to  which  her  possessions  are  contiguous."  The 
Chinese  government,  very  rightly,  complained  of  an  agree- 
ment concerning  China  about  which  China  was  not  con- 
sulted, and  declared  it  would  not  recognize  the  Agreement. 
Special  rights  based  upon  "territorial  propinquity" — this  is 
a  policy  of  Imperialism.  True  enough,  the  Agreement  de- 
clares: "The  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Japan 
deny  that  they  have  any  purpose  to  infringe  in  any  way 
on  the  independence  or  territorial  integrity  of  China."  But 
since  Japan  voluntarily  accepted  the  policy  of  the  "open 
door,"  formulated  by  John  Hay,  Japan  has  fought  an  im- 
perialistic war  against  Russia  concerning  control  of  Chinese 
territory,  and  closed  the  doors,  and  double-bolted  them,  in 
Eastern  Inner  Mongolia,  South  Manchuria,  Fukien,  Shan- 
tung, and  lesser  places. 


234  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

The  whole  of  Capitalism  is  now  in  the  orbit  of  Imperial- 
ism. Imperialism  molds  the  destiny  of  the  nations.  In 
the  days  to  come,  Imperialism  will  determine  all  things 
and  rend  the  world  in  the  savagery  of  its  struggle — unless 
revolutionary  Socialism  directs  the  hosts  of  the  proletariat 
to  the  conquest  of  Capitalism  and  Imperialism. 


II 

CONCENTRATION  AND  LABOR. 

[This  article  by  Louis  C.  Fraina  appeared  in  The  Inter- 
national Socialist  Review  of  August,  1913,  under  the  title 
"The  Call  of  the  Steel  Worker."  It  is  reprinted  here-  as  sup- 
plementary to  the  analysis  of  concentration,  as  a  general  ten- 
dency, made  in  earlier  chapters  of  this  book,  and  to  illus- 
trate the  specific  effects  of  concentration  on  wages  and  con- 
ditions of  labor. 

[The  steel  industry  is  typical  of  concentrated  industry  and 
of  Imperialism,  the  nerve-center  of  modern  capitalist  produc- 
tion. It  is  an  industry  that  constitutes  the  material  factor 
in  waging  war  today;  and  it  profits  most  from  war  and 
Imperialism. 

[This  article  describes  the  normal  conditions  of  the  steel 
industry,  not  its  abnormal  war  aspects.  Obviously,  under 
war  conditions,  the  degree  of  exploitation  and  of  profits  are 
each  increased.  A  light  is  thrown  upon  these  conditions 
by  the  report  of  John  A.  Topping,  chairman  of  the  Board 
of  Directors  of  the  Republic  Iron  and  Steel  Company,  made 
at  the  annual  stockholders'  meeting  on  April  17,  1918.  Mr. 
Topping  reported  total  profits  for  the  year  1917  of  $38,769,- 
021.39,  and  said:  "The  Republic  Iron  and  Steel  Company 
can  be  said  to  have  been  reborn  and  remade."  The  profits  of 
the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  have  been  phenomenal. 

[The  steel  industry  is  an  animating  factor  in  Imperialism; 
the  steel  workers  will  yet  become  an  animating  factor  in 
the  proletarian  revolution.] 

"I  never  had  a  strike  as  long  as  I  was  in  the  steel  busi- 
ness." Andrew  Carnegie,  Angel  of  Peace  with  the  heart  of 
steel,  made  that  astounding  statement  to  the  Stanley  Steel 
Investigating  Committee.  Expansively,  benignantly,  An- 
drew of  the  gentle  soul  and  cultural  urge  gave  his  lying  tes- 
timony— under  oath.  Homestead?  Braddocks? 

235 


236  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

The  lie  was  too  much  for  the  committee.  It  was  such  a 
crass,  palpable,  stupid  lie.  Carnegie  was  compelled  to  re- 
tract and  admit  strikes.  But  having  saved  its  neck,  the 
committee  wished  to  go  no  further  and  decided  that  the 
bloody  annals  of  Homestead  were  "really  extraneous  to  the 
investigation." 

"Let's  not  open  up  the  old  sores,"  pleaded  Congressman 
Gardner,  Republican. 

"I  agree  with  Mr.  Gardner  that  it  would  be  unkind  to 
Mr.  Carnegie,"  acquiesced  Stanley,  Democrat. 

"Unkind"?  Men  slain  in  cold  blood  to  insure  profits; 
unionism  crushed.  Where  at  Homestead  there  was  one  plate 
mill  in  1892  employing  three  crews  of  men  working  eight 
hours  a  day,  now  there  are  four  mills  each  with  two  crews, 
working  twelve  hours  a  day;  work  increased  50  per  cent  and 
wages  only  20  per  cent.  "Unkind"?  It  is  "unkind"  to 
remind  the  perpetrator  of  this  of  his  villainy;  but  it  is  not 
"unkind"  for  such  degrading  conditions  to  exist.  Blessed 
be  Capital  in  its  Holiness! 

This  typical  piece  of  capitalist  hypocrisy  has  since  been 
put  into  the  shade.  As  with  machinery,  capitalist  hypoc- 
risy of  yester-year  is  always  being  improved  upon — prog- 
ress in  all  things!  Testifying  for  the  defense  in  the  suit  to 
dissolve  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  former  Ambas- 
sador Bacon  said  that  "love  of  his  fellow-men,"  of  the 
workers  (!?!),  was  the  basic  motive  that  led  J.  Pierpont 
Morgan  to  organize  the  steel  trust.  "His  first  great  object," 
testified  Mr.  Bacon,  "was  by  reason  of  the  decrease  in  the 
cost  of  production  to  make  it  possible  to  improve  the  con- 
ditions of  labor  by  increasing  wages  and  bettering  condi- 
tions." Amplifying  this,  the  New  York  Commercial,  June 
18,  1913,  said  with  editorial  effrontery: 

"The  new  regime  of  iron  and  steel  production  has  been 


CONCENTRATION  AND  LABOR  237 

singularly  free  from  this  bellicose  attitude  on  the  part  of 
labor.  It  may  be  attributed  in  a  large  measure  to  the  Mor- 
gan idea  that  to  get  the  best  results  of  heavily  capitalized 
industry,  it  must  be  organized  on  a  basis  which  permits  a 
large  and  generous  study  of  the  interests  of  labor." 

Amen! 

And,  of  course,  if  we  accept  the  statements  in  the  "Amen!" 
spirit,  and  that  is  the  purpose,  the  Press  now  playing  the 
role  of  Church,  they  are  gospel  truth.  But  being  Infidels, 
we  investigate: 

Since  the  formation  of  the  Steel  Trust  in  1902  profits 
have  proven  huge  and  inexhaustible. 

Simultaneously,  total  wages  have  been  reduced,  and  in- 
dividual wages  only  slightly  increased.  Comparing  this 
slight  increase  with  higher  prices,  actual  wages  have  been 
heavily  reduced. 

From  1902  to  the  quarter  ended  March  31,  1913,  Steel 
Trust  profits  total  $1,397,383,092.  With  the  exception  of 
1904  and  1908,  yearly  profits  have  always  exceeded  the 
hundred-million  mark — 166-odd  millions  in  1902,  160-odd 
millions  in  1907,  etc.  The  lowest  profit  was  in  1904,  being 
73-odd  millions.  And  these  profits  are  even  huger  than  the 
figures  show,  for  by  overcapitalization,  financial  jugglery 
and  a  misleading  system  of  accounts,  profits  are  systematic- 
ally underestimated. 

Obviously,  the  Steel  Trust  has  been  a  bonanza  to  its 
owners.  Heavily-capitalized  industry  pays.  But  this  "pros- 
perity" is  a  sort  of  mirage  in  the  desert  to  the  proletariat. 

Examining  the  figures  compiled  by  the  Bureau  of  Labor 
report  for  the  pig  iron  branch  of  the  Steel  Trust,  we  as- 
certain : 

1.  In  Pennsylvania  mills  in  1902  the  Trust  employed 
37,191  men,  who  produced  8,111,000  tons  of  pig  iron. 


238  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

2.  In  1909,  the  workers  had  decreased  numerically  to 
14,921 ;  yet  their  output  increased  2,610,024  tons — they  pro- 
duced 10,721,024  tons  of  pig  iron.     And  the  men  were 
employed  fewer  days 

3.  Total  wages  in  1902,  $10,191,579;  in  1909,  $7,702,304 
— a  decrease  in  wages  of  $2,489,275. 

4.  The  average  daily  wage  in  seven  years  increased  twenty 
cents. 

5.  Output  per  man  increased  from  1.51  to  2.39  tons  in  the 
seven  years.     Labor-cost  per  ton  decreased  from  $1.25  to 
$0.82  per  ton. 

The  facts  of  pig  iron  apply  to  the  steel  industry  as  a 
whole,  and  to  concentrated  Capitalism. 

Concentrated  capital,  the  form  to  which  all  capital  trends, 
means  greater  power  of  exploitation.  Concentrated  capital 
means : 

1.  Availing  itself  of  the  most  efficient  existing  machinery, 
and   improving  that   machinery,   concentrated   capital   ex- 
tracts an  increasingly  large  volume  of  surplus  value  from 
the  proletariat. 

2.  Simultaneously  with  greater  output  flowing  from  ma- 
chinery, productivity  of  labor  is  increased  by  the  form  of 
work — large  co-operative  activity,  "the  collective  power  of 
masses." 

3.  This   increased  productivity   proceeds   simultaneously 
with  relatively  lesser  number  of  employes;  hence  increasing 
unemployment  and  competition,  thereby  preventing  a  gen- 
eral rise  in  wages. 

4.  While  marshalling  the  workers  into  an  industrial  army, 
concentrated  capital   succeeds  in  destroying  the  potential 
proletarian  power  of  this  army  by  dividing  the  workers  with 
a  variety  of  schemes. 

5.  The  workers  only  gradually  awaken  to  a  sense  of  the 


CONCENTRATION  AND  LABOR  239 

power  which  is  their's  by  being  organized  in  the  "labor 
army"  of  concentrated  capital;  but  the  awakening  comes, 
sooner  or  later. 

6.  In  the  meantime,  concentrated  capital  sweats  out  of 
the  proletariat  fabulous  profits,  while  actually  paying  less 
wages,  and,  socially  measured,  making  worse  the  condition 
of  the  proletariat. 

The  Bureau  of  Labor  recently  made  public  a  special 
report  of  its  investigation  into  the  iron  and  steel  industry 
as  a  whole.  The  investigation  covers  the  period  of  May, 
1910,  embracing  212  blast  furnaces  and  steel  plants,  em- 
ploying 172,706  men. 

Of  the  total  172,706  employes,  13,868,  or  8.03  per  cent, 
received  less  than  14  cents  per  hour;  20,527,  or  11.89  per 
cent,  received  14  and  under  16  cents;  and  51,417,  or  29.77 
per  cent,  received  16  and  under  18  cents.  Thus  85,812,  or 
49.69  per  cent  of  all  employes,  received  less  than  18  cents 
per  hour. 

Those  receiving  18  and  under  25  cents  per  hour  numbered 
46,132,  or  26.71  per  cent;  while  40,762,  or  23.61  per  cent, 
earned  25  cents  and  over.  A  few  very  highly  skilled  em- 
ployes received  $1.25  per  hour;  and  those  receiving  50  cents 
and  over  per  hour  numbered  4,403,  or  2.55  per  cent  of  all 
employes. 

Figuring  on  a  12-hour  day,  131,944  employes,  or  76.4 
per  cent  of  the  total,  received  from  $1.68  to  $3.00  in  daily 
wages,  while  half  of  the  men  received  from  $1.68  to  $2.16. 

On  February  1,  1913,  the  Steel  Trust  made  "a  general 
increase  in  wages  and  salaries,  averaging  for  employes  re- 
ceiving less  than  $2  per  day  about  12^  Per  cent."  We  do 
not  know  whether  the  increase  has  actually  been  made;  we 
must  take  Chairman  Gary's  word  for  it.  But  if  it  has  the 
"increase"  is  a  mere  bagatelle  compared  with  the  gigantic 


240  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

rise  in  the  cost  of  living  and  the  yield  of  profits. 

It  must  be  observed  that  despite  this  "increase"  in  wages, 
which  Gary  claims  is  $12,000,000,  profits  of  the  Steel  Cor- 
poration  for  the  first  quarter  of  1913  were  higher  from  eight 
to  twenty  million  dollars  for  eight  years,  and  lower  from 
five  to  two  millions  for  three  years.  So  huge  is  labor's 
yield  of  surplus  value  in  trustified  industry  that  profits  are 
always  large  despite  "increased  operating  expenses." 

The  picture  drawn  by  steel  mill  wages  is  one  of  grinding, 
agonizing  toil,  of  a  machine  existence — just  enough  oil  in 
the  form  of  wages  to  keep  the  human  machine  going.  The 
$1.68  to  $2.16  daily  wage  is  even  lower,  considering  that 
few  steel  workers  are  steadily  employed.  Social  workers 
estimate  that  $700  to  $800  is  the  minimum  yearly  income 
to  sustain  a  proletarian  family  on  common  necessaries.  Most 
of  these  steel  workers  never  earn  that.  They  must,  there- 
fore, live  a  materially  sub-human  existence. 

Not  only  are  wages  low,  but  hours  of  work  are  extraor- 
dinarily high,  Of  the  172,706  steel  workers  investigated 
by  the  Bureau  of  Labor,  50,000  or  29  per  cent,  customarily 
toiled  seven  days  per  week,  and  20  per  cent  sweated  84 
hours  or  more  per  week,  which  means  a  12-hour  working 
day  every  blessed  day  in  the  week,  including  Sunday. 
Nearly  43  per  cent  of  the  men  were  found  working  72 
hours  per  week,  or  12  hours  per  day  for  a  6-day  week. 
Men  often  toil  20  to  30  hours  at  a  stretch.  A  plan  is  mooted 
to  give  the  7-day  men  one  day  off  a  week,  but  this  would 
not  affect  the  72-hour  a  week  men.  Toil  would  continue 
frightful. 

The  hypocrtical  plea  of  the  steel  barons  is  that  a  "metal- 
lurgical necessity"  exists  for  the  7-day  week,  for  continuous 
operation.  But  this  continuous  operation  could  be  secured 
without  sweating  the  men  seven  days  a  week.  The  plea  is 


CONCENTRATION  AND  LABOR  241 

a  dastardly  subterfuge.  The  investigators  developed  the 
fact  that  the  7-day  week  was  not  confined  to  the  blast  fur- 
nace department,  where  there  is  a  "metallurgical  necessity" 
for  continuous  operation,  and  where  88  per  cent  of  the  men 
toil  seven  days  a  week;  but  it  was  found  that,  to  a  consider- 
able extent,  in  other  departments  where  no  "metallurgical 
necessity"  exists,  work  was  also  carried  on  Sundays. 

In  an  effort  to  silence  public  opposition  the  Steel  Cor- 
poration made  a  bluff  to  remedy  these  horrible  conditions. 
A  committee  of  stockholders  was  appointed  to  investigate 
the  12-hour  day,  which  said  among  other  things: 

"We  are  of  the  opinion  that  a  12-hour  day  of  labor,  fol- 
lowed continuously  by  any  group  of  men  for  any  consider- 
able number  of  years,  means  a  decreasing  of  the  efficiency 
and  lessening  of  the  vigor  and  virility  of  such  men."  (My 
italics). 

The  Finance  Committee  than  appointed  a  sub-committee 
which  reported  against  the  change  at  the  stockholders'  meet- 
ing of  April  21,  1913,  on  the  ground  that  "unless  compet- 
ing iron  and  steel  manufacturers  will  also  enforce  a  less 
than  12-hour  day,  the  effort  to  reduce  the  twelve  hours  per 
day  at  all  our  works  will  result  in  losing  a  large  number  of 
our  employes,  many  of  them  preferring  to  take  positions 
requiring  more  hours  of  work  per  day." 

A  mesh  of  hypocritical  pretense.  The  matter  of  com- 
petition cuts  no  figure,  for  the  "trust"  has  "gentlemen's 
agreements"  with  the  "independents"  not  only  concerning 
prices,  but  conditions  of  labor.  They  are  agreed  to  crush 
labor,  but  do  not  wish  to  agree  to  "improve"  labor.  An- 
other subterfuge  John  A  Fitch  exposes  in  the  Survey: 

"Of  course,  nothing  is  said  in  this  report,  nor  was  any- 
thing said  at  the  stockholders'  meeting,  as  to  the  real  reason 
why  workers  leave  their  positions. 


242  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

"The  facts  are  that  the  cost  of  this  reform  was  borne 
by  the  men.  The  Steel  Corporation  did  not  pay  its  men 
their  old  earnings  for  their  new  six-day  stint." 

Economic  necessity,  and  not  that  "  the  men  like  to  work 
twelve  hours  a  day,"  as  Judge  Gary  impudently  claims,  com- 
pels these  men  to  toil  inhumanly. 

Nevertheless,  an  8-hour  day  in  the  steel  mills  is  only  a 
matter  of  time.  Capitalists  are  recognizing  that  non-sweated 
labor  is  the  most  efficient.  This  reform,  says  the  Boston 
Transcript,  "experts  declare  will  increase,  rather  than  di- 
minish, dividends."  And  the  Bureau  of  Labor  argues  that — 

From  the  experience  of  English  blast-furnace  owners  who 
have  adopted  the  eight-hour  shift  system,  and  from  the  ex- 
perience in  other  industries,  it  will  tend  to  produce  a  much 
more  efficient  force  of  workmen.  There  is  no  increase  in 
"cost  of  production,"  and  the  quality  of  the  product  im- 
proves greatly. 

The  steel  barons  have  a  purely  capitalist  interest  in  their 
slaves,  not  at  all  human.  Recently,  steel  superintendents  in 
certain  Pennsylvania  steel  towns  appeared  in  court  and 
argued  against  granting  saloons  licenses,  as  saloons  men- 
aced their  profits,  drink  sapping  the  workers'  efficiency. 

Intoxication  is  a  logical  result  of  steady,  grinding  toil. 
And  saloons  flourish  in  steel  towns.  Toil  in  steel  plants, 
especially  in  the  blast  furnaces,  saps  vitality  and  develops 
an  overpowering  desire  for  stimulants.  The  men  drink,  and 
drink,  for  in  drink  their  sorrow  vanishes  any  they  have  a 
momentary  thrill  of  pleasure.  And  many,  if  not  most,  drink 
because  of  a  blind,  dumb,  rooted  resentment.  They  hate 
the  boss,  they  hate  work,  they  hate  themselves,  they  hate 
life.  This  resentment  and  hatred  shall  be  harnessed  to  the 
mighty  ends  of  the  Revolution. 


CONCENTRATION  AND  LABOR  243 

It  was  during  the  Passaic,  N.  J.,  textile  strike.  I  was 
interviewing  one  of  the  strikers,  a  wisp  of  a  Polish  girl  of 
sixteen.  Toil  in  the  industrial  Bastile  had  not  yet  dried  the 
red  of  her  cheeks. 

"My  mother  lives  in  Pittsburgh,"  she  said.  "I  send  her 
what  I  can.  My  father  worked  in  the  steel  mill,  worked 
hard  and  long.  Then  he  began  to  drink,  and  became  un- 
kind. Oh,  yes,  he  was  good  before  that.  One  day  his  arm 
was  cut  off  and  he  became  worse.  Then  mother  and  I  had 
to  leave  him." 

"Do  you  ever  see  your  father  now?" 

"Never.  And  we  don't  want  to,  either.  But  I  saw  very 
little  of  him  in  the  old  days,  he  worked  so  long." 

The  Steel  Trust  plumes  itself  on  having  had  no  strikes. 
"There  have  been  no  strikes  or  disturbances  in  the  operation 
of  the  great  steel  company,  and  comparatively  few  in  its 
more  powerful  rivals,  which  have  patterned  after  its  ideals 
and  labor  plans,"  says  the  Commercial.  The  reason  thereof 
is  plain.  The  Steel  Trust  terrorizes  its  employes  and  holds 
them  in  mental,  physical  and  spiritual  bondage — for  the 
Church  in  the  steel  centers  is  owned  body  and  soul  by  the 
exploiters.  The  men  are  forbidden  to  organize.  They  must 
present  grievances  individually;  even  a  committee  must  not 
be  formed.  A  comprehensive  spy  system  is  maintained; 
men  are  afraid  to  talk  for  fear  of  discharge.  An  investiga- 
tor says:  "I  called  one  day  at  the  home  of  a  skilled  steel 
worker,  an  employe  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation, 
and  he  sent  his  wife  to  the  door  to  tell  me  that  he  couldn't 
talk  with  me  because  the  company  had  'given  orders  that 
the  men  shouldn't  talk  about  mill  work.'  There  was  a  wage 
cut  at  Homestead  in  1908  that  set  the  whole  town  talking 
around  their  firesides.  But  on  the  street  the  men  would 
deny  all  knowledge  of  it." 


244  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

The  associative  spirit  is  crushed.  The  workers  dare  not 
act  collectively;  the  trust  takes  care  that  they  don't;  and  in- 
dividually they  are  helpless.  Any  move  collectively  to  im- 
prove conditions  means  discharge.  In  1906  the  workers  of 
Jones  &  Laughlin,  powerful  "independents,"  planned  a  meet- 
ing of  protest  against  Sunday  work.  The  superintendent 
threatened  with  discharge  whoever  attended  the  meeting. 
The  meeting  was  not  held.  This  practise  is  general  in  the 
iron  and  steel  industry. 

Then  there  is  the  "pension  system."  Pensions  rivet  em- 
ployes to  the  employer.  They  are  a  chain-ball  on  the  ankle 
of  proletarian  action. 

The  steel  industry  has  applied  the  "efficiency  system"  with 
marked  success.  One  phase  of  the  "efficiency  system"  is 
the  more  intensive  exploitation  of  the  human  unit  in  pro- 
duction; the  other  phase,  more  important  to  the  capitalist 
at  the  present  stage  of  things,  is  holding  the  worker  in  sub- 
jection and  discouraging  union  organization. 

"Work,  Wages  and  Profits"  by  H.  L.  Gantt,  a  book  writ- 
ten for  employers  and  published  by  The  Engineering  Maga- 
zine, New  York,  gives  the  snap  away.  Gantt  advocates  the 
"efficient  utilization  of  labor";  this  implies  getting  the 
worker  to  increase  his  output,  and  as  one  of  the  means  of 
doing  this  the  "task  and  bonus"  system  is  offered.  The 
work  is  divided  into  "tasks"  and  apportioned  among  the 
workers.  The  man  who  completes  his  task  within  the  time 
set  by  the  superintendent  (time  being  decided  by  the  most 
rapid  worker)  receives  a  "bonus."  Instituted  in  the  plants  of 
the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company,  the  assistant  superintendent 
after  two  months'  trial  wrote  that  the  method  had  "elimin- 
ated the  constant  necessity  for  driving  the  men."  Gantt 
says  that  "the  average  monthly  output  of  the  shop  from 
March  1,  1900,  to  March  1,  1901,  was  1,173,000  pounds, 


CONCENTRATION  AND  LABOR  245 

and  from  March  1,  1901,  to  August  1,  1901  (after  the 
'bonus'  system  was  inaugurated) ,  it  was  2,069,000  pounds." 
The  shop  employed  700  men  and  paid  on  the  "bonus"  plan 
only  80  workers  out  of  the  entire  700. 

The  "task  and  bonus"  scheme  decreases  "cost  of  produc- 
tion" and  increases  the  workers'  yield  of  surplus  value  at 
small  additional  expense  to  the  employer,  as  only  a  few 
receive  the  "bonus."  It  eliminates  the  "necessity  for  driv- 
ing," as  the  worker,  lured  on  by  the  "bonus"  will-o-wisp, 
becomes  his  own  slave-driver. 

"So  far  this  system  has  never  failed  to  create  a  strong 
spirit  of  harmony  and  co-operation"  between  employer  and 
employes;  it  shatters  union  efforts,  as  the  employer  uses 
the  scheme  to  separate  the  "bonus"  receivers  from  the  un- 
successful ones,  creating  a  sort  of  "bonus  aristocracy." 
Gantt  opposes  labor  unions  and  employers'  associations  as 
they  can  never  "effect  a  permanent  solution  of  the  problem 
of  the  proper  relations  between  employers  and  employes"; 
his  "task  and  bonus"  system  does  bring  about  "proper  re- 
lations," as  it  discourages  labor  unions  by  inciting  workers 
to  strive  individually,  instead  of  collectively,  to  increase 
their  wages.  What  Marx,  in  "Capital,"  said  of  wages,  ap- 
plies to  the  "efficiency"  movement — "The  rise  of  wages, 
therefore,  is  confined  within  limits  that  not  only  leave  intact 
the  foundations  of  the  capitalistic  system,  but  also  secure 
its  reproduction  on  a  progressive  scale." 

But  capitalist  chicane  cannot  stifle  the  revolutionary  spirit. 
The  very  effort  to  stifle  creates  the  revolutionary  spirit. 
There  is  a  revolutionary  group,  a  small  group,  but  that 
matters  not,  among  the  steel  workers.  And  they  are  biding 
their  time.  Revolt  is  near.  It  is  bound  to  come.  It  is  here. 
John  A.  Fitch  recites  a  typical  episode: 


246  REVOLUTIONARY  SOCIALISM 

"It  was  a  family  of  intelligence  and  breeding,  and  evi- 
dently of  strong  religious  principles.  The  father  had  been 
telling  me  about  the  experience  in  a  long  life  as  a  work- 
man. The  son  had  sat  silently  acquiescent  in  his  father's 
analysis  of  existing  conditions,  but  following  the  conversa- 
tion with  attention.  Finally,  addressing  both,  I  asked  what, 
in  their  judgment,  would  be  the  outcome  of  the  unrest  and 
discontent?  There  was  silence  for  a  moment  and  then  the 
father  shook  his  head  sadly  and  said:  'There  is  no  way  out. 
There  will  be  no  change.'  But  the  son  cried  out  through 
set  teeth:  'Yes,  there  is  a  way  out,  and  it  is  through  an 
armed  revolution.'  " 

Steel  conditions  are  universal,  the  steel  industry  being 
typical  of  trustified  Capitalism.  Trust-Capitalism  creates  a 
new  proletariat,  the  proletariat  of  machine-tenders,  of  com- 
mon, unskilled  labor.  Says  the  Bureau  of  Labor  report: 
"Large  as  is  the  proportion  that  unskilled  labor  forms  of 
the  total  labor  force  in  the  iron  and  steel  industry,  steel 
experts  have  noted  the  fact  that  the  tendency  of  recent  years 
has  been  steadily  toward  the  reduction  of  the  number  of 
highly  skilled  men  employed  and  the  establishment  of  the 
general  tvage  on  the  basis  of  common  or  unskilled  labor." 
(My  italics.)  Wages  paid  common  labor  in  the  steel  indus- 
try are  the  wages  of  common  labor  everywhere.  There  is  an 
identity  in  exploitation.  This  develops  fraternal  spirit, 
and,  coupled  with  its  strategic  industrial  position,  makes 
common  labor  the  revolutionary  force. 

Our  agitation,  our  organization  efforts  must  recognize 
this  fact:  Common  labor  dominates  industry.  And  when 
common  labor  in  steel  revolts,  when  this  basic  industry 
feels  the  clutch  of  the  Revolution,  Capitalism  will  be  shaken 
to  its  depths.  The  revolt  of  the  steel  workers  will  sound 
the  call  for  the  Social  Revolution. 


a^ 


*'v"-v-vL/£t*P 
^C^OX-T^ 

C/7»^0A^^' 

/. 


THE  NEW  INTERNATIONAL 

A  Journal  of  Revolutionary 
Socialist  Reconstruction 

EDITOR 
LQUIS  C.  FRAINA 

A  fighting  journal  of  the  oncoming  Social  Revolution. 
Waging  a  war  on  two  fronts — a  war  against  reactionary 
Capitalism  and  a  war  against  reactionary  Socialism. 
Official  organ  of  the  Socialist  Propaganda  League. 

Monthly — $1.50  a  year  (12  numbers) 
3246  Kingsbridge  Avenue  New  York,  N.  Y. 


THE  CLASS  STRUGGLE 

Devoted  to  International  Socialism 

EDITED  BY 
LOUIS  C.  FRAINA  AND  LUDWIG  LORE 

A  magazine  representing  the  best  thought  and  most 
revolutionary  convictions  of  International  Socialism. 

Every  two  months — $1.50  a  year 

Other  publications:  "The  Crisis  in  the  German  Social 
Democracy,"  by  Karl  Liebknecht,  Franz  Mehring  and 
Rosa  Luxemburg,  35  cents.  "I  Accuse,"  by  Fritz  Adler, 
10  cents.  "Political  Parties  in  Russia,"  by  N.  Lenin, 
5  cents.  "Laborism  and  Socialism,"  by  Louis  C.  Fraina, 
10  cents. 

SOCIALIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY 
431  Pulaski  St.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 


CIHPIIIC     PnES«,     NIW    TOKI 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACLTY 


f                            University  of  California 
SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY   3  ' 
405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-138$  -.*.£ 
Return  this  material  to  the  library 
from  which  it  was  borrowed. 

= 

&*Ai»Rft^ 

2> 

n. 

m. 

Y. 

ost 

ial 

md 

Rosa  Luxemburg,  35  cents.    "/  Accuse,"  by  Fritz  Ad  er, 
10  cents.     "Political  Parties  in  Russia,"  by  N.  Lenin,  . 
5  cents.    "Laborism  and  Socialism"  by  Louis  C.  Fraina, 

10  cents. 

SOCIALIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY 

431  Pulaski  St.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y, 

ciupnic   PBESS,   i»rw  YOHK 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    001  076  589    9 


